WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
ORGANISATION MONDIALE DU COMMERCE  
ORGANIZACIÓN MUNDIAL DEL COMERCIO WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
2 July 2009 
 (09-3239) 
Trade Policy Review Body 
6 and 8 April 2009 Original:  English/ 
 anglais/  inglés 
 
 
TRADE POLICY REVIEW 
 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
 
Minutes of Meeting
 
 
Addendum  
 
Chairperson:  H.E. Mr.István Major (Hungary) 
 
 This document contains the a dvance written questions, and rep lies provided by the European 
Communities. __________________________________________________________________________________ 
Organe d'examen des politiques commerciales 
6 et 8 avril 2009 
 
EXAMEN DES POLITIQUES COMMERCIALES 
 
COMMUNAUTÉS EUROPÉENNES 
 
Compte rendu de la réunion
 
 
Addendum  
 
Président:  S.E. M. István Major (Hongrie) 
 
 Le présent document contient les questions écrites communiquées à l'avance et les réponses fournies par les Communautés européennes. __________________________________________________________________________________ 
Órgano de Examen de las Políticas Comerciales 
6 y 8 de abril de 2009 
 
EXAMEN DE LAS POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES 
 
COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS 
 
Acta de la reunión
 
 
Addendum  
 
Presidente:  Excmo. Sr. István Major (Hungría) 
 
 En el presente documento figuran las pre guntas presentadas anticipadamente por escrito, 
junto con las respuestas facilitadas por las Comunidades europeas.   
    WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
 REPLIES PROVIDED BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
 
BRAZIL I  
 
Question 1 
Document WT/TPR/G/214 refers to the accession of  the EC to the World Customs Organization in 
2007 and to paving the way "for the EC to contribute to, and influence WCO decision-making in key areas for the EC such as secur ity, IPR, trade facilitation and capacity building, Customs in the 
21
st Century as well as more traditional activities of  the WCO in customs areas" (paragraph 10, 
page 6). Please elaborate on the role or effects of  the above-referred new or non-traditional activities 
of the WCO, apparently favoured or stimulated by  Contracting Parties such as the EC, vis-à-vis the 
work developed in existing specia lized agencies or Organizations such as the WIPO and the WTO. 
 
Answer  
As far as the fight against counterfeit and piracy is concerned, the WCO and its Members have 
recognised for some considerable time that customs have a clear role to play in border enforcement 
of intellectual property rights. The EC has energ etically supported a broad range of issues launched 
within the WCO, including the Secure group, the lat est initiative to combat IPR infringements in this 
organisation. The EC supports the development of standards on IPR enforcement, as well as the 
development and delivery of related technical a ssistance. The EC considers such work would 
complement the other bodies compet ent for intellectual property rights, such as WIPO and the WTO."  
 
Question 2 
Paragraphs 22 and 23 of document WT/TPR/G/214 ma ke reference to the increase of trade in goods 
with developing countries and to the concentration of trade in services with developed countries, 
respectively. Please explain the reasons for these tr ends and their possible effects in the general 
balance of trade in the EC (partners, composition, etc.) in the coming years. 
 
Answer  
The EC's services trade balance is in surplus. It is  the largest exporter of commercial services and its 
market share has increased between 2001 and 20 07 (according to our competitiveness report). 
Services make up a higher share of GDP in devel oped economies than in less developed ones. They 
generally include more "sophisticated" products (s uch as banking, communications and business 
services) and they tend to occur more in  complex vertical production chains that are more typical for 
the type of intra-industry trade occurring between  developed economies (such as cars). At the same 
time, barriers to services trade tend to be lower in developed countries (in terms of both direct trade barriers and general business environment). As the share of services grow s also in emerging 
economies one might expect an increased participati on of these countries in services trade. This is 
potentially positive for the EC because it would open new export markets for EC services and it would 
also enable the EC to import more services from  these countries. However, all these trends and 
shaping factors would need to be qualified by th e additional strains put on the services economy (in 
particular financial services) by the current global economic crisis. 
 
Question 3 
Paragraph 26 of document WT/TPR/G/214 affirms that "the looming economic downturn we are 
currently experiencing makes the case for furthe r market opening which can create new opportunities 
and contribute to output creation". Similarly, para graph 28 of the same document states that "the right 
response to the current bleak economic outlook is  to create new opportunities for trade". Please 
explain how can market opening be stimulated a nd what new opportunities are envisaged, if any, in 
the context of the world economic situation in areas that have experienced little liberalization so far. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 4  
 
 Answer
 
The EU is firmly committed to concluding the Doha Round, as demonstrated by the extent and depth 
of concessions conditionally tabled, and will continue to advocate earl y closure, as the EU considers 
that Doha would be the most effective means of both creating new opportunities to trade and of 
preventing potentially protectionist measures.  Serv ices liberalisation is a good example of an area 
which would provide significant bene fits, in particular because of th e systemic importance of services 
for a country's overall economic performance and dom estic output creation.  This is why the EU 
considers further services li beralisation to be a central element of the Doha Round, and has made the 
case for building greater ambition into the servi ces offers and signals WTO partners have so far put 
forward.  
 
Question 4 
Please elaborate on the changes in trade coverage, beneficiaries and other relevant adjustments 
following the adoption of a new GSP regulation on 22 July 2008. Please indicate how can "evolutions 
in relevant trade data" be assessed by WTO member s in the context of the preferential treatment 
extended by the EC through several initiatives and programmes? (document WT/TPR/G/214, 
paragraph 78). 
 
Answer  
Full information on the new GSP Regulation, including any changes in comparison with the 
Regulation previously in force, is provided in the EC's notification to the Committee on Trade and 
Development (circulated in WTO document WT/COM TD/N/4/Add.4). As regards adjustments, for 
example, as a result of the operation of the graduat ion mechanism built into the scheme and based on 
trade data for the period 2004-06, GSP tariff prefere nces have been re-established for six beneficiary 
countries (Algeria, India, Indonesia, Russia, South Africa and Thailand) and withdrawn for one (Vietnam) in a number of specific tariff sections.  
This notification provides detailed trade data in  relation to the GSP sch eme. Any WTO Member 
interested to access more comprehensive EC trade data reflecting trade taking place also under other 
preferential agreements or arrangements can do so through the web site of Eurostat. Please go to 
External trade under  http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page ?_pageid=0,1136217,0_45571467&_dad=portal&_sche
ma=PORTAL and click on external trade, detailed dat a, and then on the icon marked "Traditional 
external trade database (ComExt)". 
 
BRAZIL II
 
 
GOVERNMENT REPORT WT/TPR/G/214 
II. KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EC (1) INSTITUTIONAL DEVELOPMENTS  Question 1 
Para 10. "On 30 June 2007, the Council of the Worl d Customs Organization (WCO) decided to accept 
the request of the EC to join the WCO as of 1 Ju ly 2007....The EC Membership paves the way for the 
EC to contribute to, and influence WCO decisi on-making in key areas for the EC, such as security, 
IPR, trade facilitation and capacity building..."  
Could the EC please provide details of its prior ities for the WCO decision-making in the field of 
intellectual property rights and in particular how these initiatives relate to the mandate of the WCO 
vis-à-vis WIPO and the WTO.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
 Answer  
As far as the fight against c ounterfeiting and piracy is concerned, the WCO and its Members have 
recognised for some considerable time that customs have a clear role to pl ay in border enforcement 
of intellectual property rights. The EC has energ etically supported a broad range of issues launched 
within the WCO, including the Secu re Group, the latest initiative to combat IPR infringements in this 
organisation. The EC supports the development of standards on IPR enforcement, as well as the 
development and delivery of related technical a ssistance. The EC considers such work would 
complement the other bodies compet ent for intellectual property rights, such as WIPO and the WTO. 
 
III. KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EC’S TRADE POLICY 
(1) INTRODUCTION 
 Question 2  
Para 30. "...the negotiation of the Anti-Counterfeit Tr ade Agreement, in which the EC intends to play 
a key role, will set a new internationa l standard for IPR enforcement...". 
 
Could the EC provide detailed information on the specific objectives and main provisions of the Anti-
Counterfeit Trade Agreement?  
Answer
 
The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) is an attempt to respond to the new challenges 
posed by counterfeiting and piracy. Its objective is  to provide an international framework that 
improves the enforcement of IPR la ws. It does not aim to create ne w IPR, but to create improved 
international standards as to how to act against large-scale infringements of IPR. This goal is 
pursued through three primary components of ACTA: (i ) international co-operation; (ii) enforcement 
practices; and (iii) legal framework for enforcem ent of IPR. The negotiations are still ongoing. 
 
Question 3  
Could the EC please explain how an Agreement nego tiated among a limited number of partners – 13 
as far as it has been possible to ascertain – and w ith limited transparency for the international 
community as a whole, can aspire to ‘set a ne w international standard for IPR enforcement’? 
 Answer:
 
The current negotiating parties of ACTA are a mi x of developed and emerging economies: Australia, 
Canada, the EU, including its 27 Member States, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, NZ, Singapore, Switzerland and the US. These countries represent a considerable proportion of the world trade as 
well as of the potential market for pirated and c ounterfeit goods. Any set of standards agreed among 
the ACTA partners will certainly have a considerabl e effect, in particular regarding the "demand" 
side of the global traffic of IPR infringing goods  and should constitute a solid basis for improved 
international standards.. In light of the growing international consensus on IPR enforcement, the 
European Communities are confident that more count ries will join ACTA when they feel the time is 
right. 
 (2) WTO 
 
Question 4  
Para. 36. "The EC will be working to update the rule-book that standardizes on a uniformly high level 
customs and border agency rules and practice rela ting to GATT Articles V, VIII and X for all WTO 
Members". 
 
How can the EC ensure that the customs and border agency rules and practices of its own Member 
States will not constitute an obstacle to the transit of  trade in legitimate products, particularly in the WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 6  
 
 area of generic pharmaceuticals, between other WTO Members, and that such rules and practices will 
be applied uniformly by all its Member States?  
Answer
 
Customs rules and practices in the EU with rega rd to goods suspected of infringing certain 
intellectual property rights are contained in Regulat ion 1383/2003.  The same legislation, binding in 
its entirety, is therefore app licable in all Member States and as it is based upon TRIPS, similar to 
border enforcement legislation of other WTO Memb ers.  EU legislation provides for customs to 
temporarily detain (, within strict time-limits, goods  that are suspected of infringing an intellectual 
property right, so that the right holder may che ck the goods and decide whether to pursue the case 
before the national court. If not, the goods are rele ased by the customs authorities. Additionally, the 
EU legislation clearly foresees sufficient safeguar ds against attempts by applicants to abuse the 
system.  The EC does therefore not see any obstacle to the transit of trade in legitimate products, 
particularly in the area of generic pharmaceuticals that would not be compliant with WTO rules. 
 
(3) CREATING THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENT FOR TRADE 
 
Question 5  
Para. 46 (item iv) mentions that the EC is engaged in enforcing IPR in third countries, through closer 
cooperation and regular dialogue. In this respect , the "Report on Community Customs Activities on 
Counterfeit and Piracy"  
(http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/docum ents/customs/customs_c ontrols/counterfeit_pir
acy/statistics2007.pdf) presents figures relating to sei zures carried out at EC borders in the area of 
IPR. According to the information provided in th at document, Switzerland ranks as the number one 
country of origin of seized medicines in 2007 (Annex 4, page 20).  
In view of these figures, could the EC inform wh ether measures are being undertaken to enforce IPR 
protection in Switzerland and also whether cooperati on and regular dialogue are envisaged with that 
country in this area?  
Answer
 
Due to their geographic proximity the EU and Sw itzerland have been co-operating for a long time 
now on issues of common interest including IPR protection.  
 
Question 6  
In December 2008, Dutch customs authorities retained a consignment of generic medicines 
originating from India and bound for Brazil, while  in transit through the Netherlands, based on an 
alleged breach of patent rights. According to sta tistics relating to customs´ seizures in the EC´s 
borders for 2006 and 2007, India ranked in th e first and second positions, respectively.  
 Could the EC clarify whether cases such as the one described above would qualify for the counting of 
medicines originating in India, seized in the EC´s Member States?  Answer
 
Where goods are only temporary deta ined for checks and then released  and returned to the owner of 
the goods, they do not qualify to form part of statistics relating to seizures. 
 
Question 7  
The WHO issued a statement on 13.03.09, which states th at "ensuring that the interests of health and 
trade are appropriately managed, also means that th e flow of legitimate medicines, including generic 
medicines, is not impeded". Article 41.1 of the TRIPS Agreement refers to ‘procedures shall be 
applied in such a manner as to avoid the cr eation of barriers to legitimate trade (…)". 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
 In light of the above, could the EC explain why the systematic seizure of generic medicines in transit 
through the EC should not be regarded as barriers to legitimate trade?  
Answer
 
As is the practice in other WTO Me mbers, the EU customs are fully entitled, including from the point 
of view of international law, to inspect goods in  transit suspected to infringe intellectual property 
rights so that, if need be, they can take measures to stop the traffic of potentially dangerous products, 
such as for example fake medicines. This action is not systematic but only occurs where there is a 
suspicion of an infringement. Where there is asuspici on, the goods are tempor arily detained within 
strict time-limits to enable the right holder to ch eck the goods and decide wh ether to pursue the case 
before the national court. If not, the goods are released by the customs authorities. The EC does 
therefore not see any barrier to legitimate trade in such action.  The figures produced in the reports on seizures at  EC borders on the charges of ‘counterfeit’ and 
‘piracy’ include seizures of me dicines. EC Regulation 1383/2003 defines  ‘counterfeit goods’, as 
follows: 
 (i) goods, including packaging, bearing without  authorisation a trademark identical to the 
trademark validly registered in respect  of the same type of goods, or wh ich cannot be distinguished in 
its essential aspects from such a trademark, and wh ich thereby infringes the trademark-holder's rights 
under Community law, as provided for by Counc il Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on 
the Community trademark(5) or the law of the Me mber State in which the application for action by 
the customs authorities is made;  (ii) any trademark symbol (including a logo, labe l, sticker, brochure, instructions for use or 
guarantee document bearing such a symbol), even if presented separately, on the same conditions as 
the goods referred to in point (i);  (iii) packaging materials bearing the trademarks of  counterfeit goods, presented separately, on 
the same conditions as the goo ds referred to in point (i);’ 
  
The same Regulation defines ‘pirated goods’ as being:  
   "pirated goods", namely goods which are or contai n copies made without the consent of the holder of 
a copyright or related right or design right, regardl ess of whether it is registered in national law, or 
of a person authorised by the right-holder in th e country of production in  cases where the making of 
those copies would constitute an infringement of that right under Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 
of 12 December 2001 on Community designs(6) or  the law of the Member State in which the 
application for customs action is made; 
 
Question 8  
Could the EC clarify whether medicines seized on the grounds of patent infringement are included in 
the statistics produced, or alternatively under th e label of "counterfeit" or "pirate" goods?  
 
Answer  
EC Regulation 1383/2003 applies to goods suspected of  infringing an intellectual property right. With 
regard to patents, this Regulation does not refer to  "counterfeit goods" or "pirated goods" but only to 
"goods infringing a patent" (Article 2.1.a), b) a nd c).(i). Therefore, statistics include medicines 
intercepted on the ground of patent in fringement and identified as such. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 8  
 
 Question 9  
If so, could the EC clarify how would a patent infringement qualify as "counterfeiting" or "piracy"? 
 
Answer
 
As indicated in reply to question 8, EC  Regulation 1383/2003 does not apply the terms 
"counterfeiting" or "piracy" to patent infringements.  
Question 10 
Could the EC explain how the above-mentioned definitions of "counterfeit goods" and "pirated 
goods" are aligned with the provision of the TRIPS Agreement, Article 51, footnote 14? 
 
Answer
 
Article 51, footnote 14, of the TRIPS Agreement de fines the concepts of "counterfeiting" and "piracy" 
in relation to trademarks and copyright. EC Regul ation 1383/2003 is generally aligned with these 
provisions. EU definitions, however, build upon th e TRIPS minimum standards, for instance, by 
including certain trademark symbols and packaging materials in the concept of "counterfeit goods" 
and designs in the concept of "pirated goods". 
 
SECRETARIAT REPORT WT/TPR/S/214  
 II TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(5) TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS  
Para 56: "Since September 2002, the EC has been  negotiating economic pa rtnership agreements 
(EPAs) with the African, Caribbean and Pacific (A CP) countries. The negotiations are to replace the 
unilateral preferences granted under the Cotonou Ag reement by bilateral pr eferences granted under 
EPAs.  EPAs are based on four main pillars:  (i) pa rtnership, entailing rights and obligations for both 
sides; (ii) regional integration, taking into account  existing integration initia tives; (iii) development, 
taking account of the economic, social, and environm ental constraints of ACP countries; and (iv) link 
to the WTO, with a view to facilitating the grad ual integration of ACP countries into the world 
economy.  Specifically, the agreements provide for progressive liberalization of trade in both goods 
and services, and address other trade-related issues.   Development concerns are reflected through 
flexibility vis-à-vis depth of liberalization, its asy mmetry, length of transition periods, trade coverage 
and exceptions, and through EC support measures". 
 
On the EC’s website, it is stated that ‘EPAs are thus intended to consolidate regional integration 
initiatives within the ACP and to foster the gradual integration of the ACP into the global economy on 
the basis of an open, transparent and predictabl e framework for goods and services. EPAs are trade 
and cooperation agreements at th e service of development.’  
On 5.02.09, the European Parliament adopted a Resolution stressing that ‘EPAs concluded with 
individual ACP countries, or with a groups of countries not including all countries within one region, run the risk of undermining regional integration’ and calling ‘upon the Commission to recalibrate its 
approach taking account of this risk, and ensure that concluding EPAs does not endanger regional 
integration’.   
Question 11 
Could the EC please indicate how EPAs concluded with  individual countries will help to "consolidate 
regional integration initiatives within the ACP"?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
 Answer  
The interim agreements concluded with individual African and Pacific ACP countries, which focus on 
trade in goods, act as a step towards comprehensive regional EPAs fostering regional integration and enhanced regional markets in the ACP regions. They also align the market access regime for 
developing countries that are not least developed countries (who still paid some agricultural duties 
under the Cotonou Agreement) with the duty-free quot a-free access already available to all Least 
Developed Countries (LDCs) in the same region under the "Everything But Arms" initiative since 
2001.  
The aim remains to conclude comprehensive regi onal EPAs. Negotiations on such full EPAs continue 
with all African regions and the Pacific, in full  coherence with the existing regional structures and 
integration ambitions and covering a wider range of topics than only market access for trade in 
goods. 
Question 12 
It is also our understanding that these EPAs contain an MFN clause which requires the ACP partner to 
accord to the EC treatment no less favourable than that accorded to any developed country, or major 
trading country with whom it has entered into an FT A or an economic integration agreement. In this 
context, a major trading economy is defined as an industrialised developed country, or any country 
which, in the year prior to the EPA coming into  force accounts for world merchandise trade of above 
1 percent, or any grouping of countries which in th e year prior to the EPA coming into force accounts 
for world merchandise trade above 1.5%.  
Could the EC indicate how the above-mentioned MFN clause is compatible with the spirit of the 
Enabling Clause, negotiated with a view to prom oting South-South trade by enabling developing 
countries to reciprocally confer trade prefer ences amongst themselves without extending such 
preferences to developed country partners?  Answer
 
 
The MFN clauses in EPAs do not hinder South-South integration or contradict the spirit of the 
Enabling Clause. The Enabling Clause permits pr eferential agreements among developing countries 
but is not against the extension of these preferences to other WTO Members in conformity with WTO rules.  
 
The MFN clauses in EPAs are limited in scope. They  only concern potential future trade agreements 
which ACP countries might conclude with third countries considered major trading economies. 
 
Question 13 
Is it the understanding of the EC that Article XXIV of GATT 1994 authorizes Members, in 
concluding a Free Trade Area, to apply discriminat ory measures with respect  to non-Members of the 
FTA, i.e. by selective application of its MFN clause?  
Answer
 
The EC's understanding of GATT Article XXIV reflects the clear-cut purpose of this Article, namely, 
being an exception in particular to GATT Article I. Therefore, by its very nature, GATT Article XXIV 
allows WTO Members to conclude free trade area s that grant preferential treatment only to the 
Parties to an FTA, treatment which is not granted  to other WTO Members. If a Party to an FTA 
receives preferential treatment by virtue of a anot her agreement which the FTA partner subsequently 
negotiates with another country, that preferential trea tment, too, is part of the preferential treatment 
granted under the FTA and more specifically the MFN clause.  There is no problem with "selectivity" 
in the MFN clause, either by existing only in some  FTAs, but not others, or by covering only future 
and not past agreements, or by covering only certain future agreements and not others. GATT WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 10  
 
 Article XXIV stipulates minimum requirements of tr ade liberalisation, it does not require all FTAs to 
be the same, nor does it outlaw liberalising certain products more than others, as long as the Article XXIV thresholds are met.   
 
Question 14 
In the dispute settlement proceedings in "EEC – Im port Regime for Bananas", the panel noted in its 
report (DS38/R, para. 163) that "[t]he text of Article XXIV:5 makes it clear that a free-trade 
agreement with a country that is not a contrac ting party, absent a waiver from the CONTRACTING 
PARTIES, cannot justify infringements of the right s of third contracting parties to most-favoured 
nation treatment pursuant to Article I. This clear wo rding is confirmed by the drafting history, which 
records that the procedures of Article XXIV:10 were  included in the General Agreement to permit an 
approval by the CONTRACTING PARTIES of customs unions and free-trade areas that include non-contracting parties".  Could the EC confirm that concluded EPA´s incl uding non-Members of the WTO will be notified to 
the Organization pursuant to the prov isions of Article XXIV:10 of GATT 1994? 
 
Answer
 
The EC disagrees with the unadopted GATT panel re port referred by Brazil above. We would like to 
refer instead to the Panel Report on EEC-Citrus Products, which rejected the argument that FTAs 
with non-contracting parties could not be cons idered under Article XXIV:7(b) but only under 
Article XXIV:10, by noting "that the CONTRAC TING PARTIES had considered several such cases 
under the provisions of Article XXIV:7(b)". Ref erence to this Panel can be found in the Background 
Note by the WTO Secretariat on Paragraph 10 of Ar ticle XXIV of the GATT 1994 of 26 April 2004.   
 In fact, the CRTA has already conducted the examina tion of RTAs of that nature, without objection to 
the participation of non-Members. For instance the EC-Andorra agreement was examined by the 
CRTA in 1999, and at that time, Braz il did not express any related concern.  
 As it has been confirmed by the abovementioned Ba ckground Note by the WTO Secretariat, the actual 
practice since the 1950s has shown that waivers for FTAs with non-Members under GATT 
Article XXIV:10 have not been sought, and therefore, those agreements were examined by the CRTA 
without objection. We would like to note that a more recent agreement, nam ely the GATS, envisages 
the coverage of FTAs with non-Members in its Arti cle V.  Furthermore, the CRTA of 4 March 2009 
agreed that those agreements concluded with non-WT O Members would be subject to the provisions 
of the RTAs Transparency Mechanism.  
Finally, the EC would like to Brazil to be aware of the fact that a similar question arises under 
Paragraph 2(c) of the Enabling Clause, in relation to  the drafting of that provision as well as the 
evolving practice.  It is the EC's understanding th at, for instance, the Agreement on the Global System 
of Trade Preferences among Developing Countries (GSTP) , to with Brazil is a Party, includes several 
non-WTO Members. 
III TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(2) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS  
(ii) Tariffs (Paragraph 14) 
 
Question 15 
The Secretariat reports that though ad valorem rate s are the most widely used by the EC, specific 
duties still represent 6,5% of the EC’s common tariff lines.  
 Do the EC plan to reduce the number of ta riff lines in which specific duties  are used?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
 Answer  
This is under negotiation in the DDA framework (AMA  negotiation) and particularly in the context of 
tariff simplification.  Question 16 
If so, could the EC please provide more detailed info rmation on how the EC plans to reduce the use of 
such tariffs?  
Answer
 
Please refer to question 15. 
 
(iii) Other charges (Paragraph 21)  Question 17 
According to the Report, internal taxes are yet to be fully harmonized within the EC. Rates, 
derogations, and procedures concerning VAT differ across Members States. Moreover, while VAT  
on domestic products is assessed on the sale price, VA T on imports is assessed on the c.i.f value plus 
duties if any (paragraph 22 ); and the new legislati on continues to allow for derogations of Member 
States in implementation at the national level, with  variations in VAT application within the EC 
(Council Directive 2006/69/EC).  
Would the EC please explain in detail the procedur es for charging VAT on domestic products and on 
imports? 
Answer
 
VAT is charged by suppliers of goods and services as  far as domestic supplies are concerned, except 
for intra-community transactions and supplies subject to the "reverse charge" mechanism – for which 
it is the recipient which is liable to declare and pay  VAT. On importation, VAT is either declared at 
the customs point of entry either it is d eclared later on the regular VAT declaration.  
Question 18 
How does the EC assess that the mentioned intern al taxes are levied on domestic and imported 
products so as to afford treatment no less favourable to  imported products?  
Answer  
For each type of supply of goods or services, there is no difference in rate between domestic 
transactions, intra-community supplies and imports. 
 Question 19 
Would the EC clarify if, and why, the EC Counc il authorized derogations and special measures 
concerning VAT, as well as reimbursements, only for Member States?  
Answer
 
Derogations are indeed derogations granted to Me mber States in so far as the VAT Directive is also 
addressed to Member States. 
Question 20 
Do the EC evaluate that this legislation is co mpatible with the national treatment principle?  
Answer  
For each type of supply of goods or services,  there is no difference in rate between domestic 
transactions, intra-community supplies and imports. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 12  
 
 Question 21 
What efforts are the EC making to harmonize, improve and simplify the VAT ?  
Answer
 
The Commission strategy to simplify and harmonize th e current VAT regime is exp lained in detail in 
its 2000 Communication on "A Strategy to improve th e operation of the VAT System within the context 
of the Internal Market "(COM 2000(348)). A review of this strategy was carried out in 2003 
(COM 2003(614)). 
Question 22 
Can the EC provide a schedule for the full harmoniza tion of its legislation related to VAT among its 
Member States? 
Answer  
It is not possible to provide such a tim e schedule at the current point in time. 
(iv) Duty and tax exemptions and concessions  Question 23 
According to the Report, there has been no ma jor changes to the EC regime on duty and tax 
concessions during the period under review, and the cu stoms code of the EC provides for duty relief 
on re-imported Community goods, on products taken from the sea by Member State vessels. Also 
according to the Report, the recently approved cu stoms code (Modernized Customs Code) does not 
envisage substantial changes to these exemptions  and concessions, and excise duty exemptions and 
refunds are also possible.  
Could the EC please explain in detail the procedures of exempting and making concessions to 
Member States concerning duty and taxes? 
Answer
 
The reference is not made to the concessions regarding GATT but to a regime of re-imported community goods which is applied to avoid the cust oms duties levied  on goods , initially in free 
circulation in the community. Since such goods have b een temporarily exported, they are eligible for 
re-importation in the community territory (see annex B of Chapter 2 of Revised Kyoto Convention). 
Consequently, this regime doesn't result in any discrimination with regards to goods imported from 
3rd countries since the purpose is simply to avoid a double taxation levied on community products.  
 Question 24 
Could the EC clarify if, and why, the customs code  of the EC provides concessions only for Member 
States? 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 23. 
Question 25 
Does the EC evaluate that this legislation is co mpatible with the national treatment principle?  
Answer  
Please see answer to question 23. 
Question 26 
What efforts is the EC making to change this regime on duty and tax concessions?    WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 13 
 
 
 Answer  
Please see answer to question 23. 
Question 27 
Can the EC provide a schedule for the revision of this legislation? 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 23. 
(V) CUSTOMS VALUATION AND RULES OF ORIGIN  
 
Question 28  
Para. 38. At present a draft Commission regulation on the reform of GSP rules of origin is under discussion in the Customs Code Committee.  If adopted, it will change both the substance (in 
particular, the rules for determining what is suffi cient working or processing and regional cumulation) 
and the procedures (introduction of a system of stat ements on origin made directly by registered 
exporters) with the aim of making the rules si mpler and more "development-friendly", allowing 
beneficiary countries, in particular the least deve loped countries, to take greater advantage of the 
preferential. Once agreed and adopted, the new rules on substance would be implemented as of 
1 January 2010 and the new procedural rules as of 2013.  According to a Commission Communication 
of March 2005, these new rules should progressive ly be extended to other preferential trade 
arrangements, subject to case-by-case negotiations.    Regarding the reform of GSP rules of origin, an d taking into account the proposed implementation of 
the new rules by January 2010, could the EC please indicate the deadline for interested countries and 
preferential trade arrangements to pr ovide inputs and make suggestions. 
 
Answer
 
Since the legislative process on implementati on of the reform is currently ongoing, all the 
stakeholders concerned, including the beneficiary countries can still communicate their comments to 
the Commission. No particular deadline for such inpu ts has been set, though attention needs to be 
paid to the fact that the discussions on the proposal have already reached an advanced stage. 
 
Question 29 
Could the EC indicate the reasons for the exclusio n, at this stage, of agricultural and processed 
agricultural products from the draft text for SGP rules of origin. Please clarify how and when 
additional proposals will be incl uded regarding those two sectors. 
 
Answer  
The draft list rules for agricultural and processed agricultural products are being finalised by the 
Commission's services, and the Commission will shortly incorporate the rules in question in the 
reform's proposal.  Question 30  
Please inform how countries and preferential trade arrangements can benefit from regional 
cumulation, in the sense of Article 86 of the draf t rules of origin. Please clarify what practical 
measures should be taken in this regard. 
 
Answer
 
The legislative procedure for the adoption of the draft Commission's regulation implementing the 
reform is not yet finished, and thus the text of Ar ticle 86 is not yet finalized. Clarifications will be 
provided after the completion of those pro cedures when the Commission intends to launch an 
information and training process. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 14  
 
 (VIII) TECHNICAL REGULATIONS AND OTHER TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS 
(A) TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE  Question 31 
Para 64. At the Community level, the Commission may propose legislation on  technical regulations and assess their impact;  it is also responsible for drafting proposals for technical regulations.  A 
legislative act is adopted by Parliament and Council  and must be published in the Official Journal of 
the European Union.  There are two types of regulations for industrial products:  those laying down detailed specific technical requirements (‘old-appro ach directives); and those limited to the setting-up 
of essential requirements (‘new approach’ directives) defined to meet health, safety, and 
environmental objectives, whilst the technical char acteristics of the products, indicating how these 
essential requirements should be met, are given in th e standards (voluntary), which are drafted by the 
stakeholders within the committees and following the procedures of the european standardisation 
organizations. 
 
Para 67. At the Community level, standards (vol untary) can be mandated by the Commission.  The 
EC standardization bodies (CEN, CENELEC, and ETSI) have the option to accept or reject the 
mandate. These organizations have th eir own internal procedures.  Once adopted, standards must be 
publicly available.  There are presently more than 15,000 European-wide (voluntary) standards. In the 
services sector, standardization is still limited, mainly because of the heterogeneous nature of 
services.  About 80% of the work of the European standardization bodies is undertaken at the request 
of industries and other stakeholders; with th e remainder follows requests from the European 
Commission and EFTA. About 30% of the standards de veloped by CEN are identical to ISO's, whilst 
the percentage is more than 60% in the ca se of CENELEC. Following a proactive improvement 
programme developed by the European standards or ganizations, the development time of a European 
standard does not exceed 3 years. 
 
Please clarify the role of the European Commissi on in the standard-drafting process carried out by 
European standardization organizations, particularly in what concerns the control of  compatibility of 
those standards with Community legislation and WTO rules.   
Answer
 
According to EC Directive 98/34/EC1, the Commission may request the European Standards 
Organisations CEN, CENELEC and ETSI to draw  up European standards. The three European 
Standards Organisations to which the Commission may address such requests are specifically quoted 
in the annex to the directive. In the requests, the European Co mmission specifies the requirements 
that the standards have to satisfy , especially when those standards are supposed to support European 
legislation. Should a European sta ndard not comply with the essential health, safety or other relevant 
legal requirement, the Commission may formally oppose its publication in the Official Journal of the 
European Union. The three Europe an Standards Organisations have signed the Code of Good 
Practice for the Preparation, Adoption and Applica tion of Standards in Annex3 to the WTO TBT 
Agreement.  
Question 32 Please inform if there are priority sectors as re gards future standard and conformity assessment 
procedures. 
 
                                                     
 
 1 Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical 
standards and regulations  and of rules of Information Society Services , OJ L 24, 21.7.1998, p. 37,as last amended by 
Council Directive 2006/96/EC of 20 November 2006.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 15 
 
 
 Answer  
Apart from the updating of European standards  generated by the revision of EU legislation 
(machinery, lifts, medical devices, toys), the Europe an Standards Organizations may be requested to 
develop standards for, inter alia, new technologi es (ICT, nano-technolgies, bio-based products), 
eco-design of products, radio frequency identification. 
 
As far as conformity assessment is concerned, th e EU Council and the European Parliament adopted 
in July 2008 Decision No 768/2008  on a common framework for the marketing of products (so-called 
"New Legislative Framework - NLF"). The NLF is a horizontal framework setting out the common 
framework of general principles and reference prov isions for the drawing up of EC harmonising 
legislation on the marketing of products. NLF sets out , inter alia, a number of conformity assessment 
procedures.  All procedures set out in the NLF serve for the sector al legislator as a simple, clear, coherent and 
complete menu to select the most appropriate pro cedure(s) for the specific area of activity, in 
proportion to the level of risk involved and the level  of safety required. All procedures are considered 
as equivalent from a legislative point of view.  The NLF is a horizontal framework and does not focus on specific sectors. In this respect, it does not 
set out any sectoral "priorities" for conformity a ssessment. However, when s ectoral legislation is 
revised or newly adopted, it is expected the applicable  conformity assessment procedure(s) will be 
selected from among the modules provided for in the NLF.  
 Question 33 
Please clarify the nature of the "CE" marking – either voluntary of compulsory – in the light of 
Community legislation and from the perspective of third countries that export to the Community 
market. 
Answer
 
The CE marking is the only mandatory marking att esting the conformity of a product with the 
applicable requirements of the rel evant EC harmonisation legislation providing for its affixing. The 
general principles of the CE marking are laid down in Article 30 Regulation (EC)  765/2008 of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July  2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation 
and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products2. 
 Question 34 
Para 69. Third-country conformity assessment bodies (CABs) may take part in the EC's conformity 
assessment activities through mutual recognition agre ements (MRAs). The EC has negotiated MRAs 
with Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States.  
Could the EC please indicate whether it intends to  negotiate mutual recognition agreement (MRA) 
with developing countries? 
 
Answer
 
The EC does not at present have any plans to negotiate Mutual Recognition Agreements with 
developing countries  Question 35 
Para. 77. The Report mentions that at the mee ting of the TBT Committee on 05-06/11/08, several 
Members raised concerns about procedural and sci entific aspects of the classification of nickel 
compounds under Directive ATP 31 (31st Adaptation to Technical Progress to Directive 67/548 on 
                                                     
 
2 OJEU L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 16  
 
 dangerous substances – DSD). Simila r concerns were raised by a significant group of Members during 
the discussion of Directive ATP 30 in the meeting of the TBT Committee on 20/03/08.  The European Commission now intends to incorpor ate the classifications contained in ATPs 30 and 
31 into a 1
st Amendment of Adaptation to Technical Progress of the new Regulation 1272/2008 on 
classification, labelling and packaging of chemicals (CLP), which has replaced the DSD last January. 
 Bearing in mind Article 2.9 of the TBT Agreemen t, Brazil believes the European Communities should 
notify ATP 1 to the TBT Committee so that WTO Me mbers can voice their concerns and have them 
addressed before this legislation is adopted. Cons istent with Article 2.9 of the TBT Agreement, 
notification of ATP 1 is necessary because there are no "relevant international standards" for 
classification of the compounds concerned, and becau se such classification will have a "significant 
impact on trade of other Members".  The fact that the EC had already notified ATPs 30 and 31 does not exempt it from notifying ATP 1, 
because there are significant differences between th em, as well as between the underlying legislations, 
the Dangerous Substances Directive and the CLP Regulation, respectively. Some key differences 
between the two legislations are:  - Different rules on format, methodology, and inform ation requirements that could require a different 
assessment of the covered compounds; 
 
- Different cut-off levels for acute toxicity, maki ng it impossible simply to transfer classifications 
without further analysis;   - Different qualitative descriptions (e.g., Category 1A  of the CLP Regulation refers to substances 
"known to have carcinogenic potential for hum ans largely based on human evidence" while 
Category 1 of the DSD refers to substances ‘known to be carcinogenic’ based on ‘sufficient evidence 
to establish a causal association’); and  - Different product and packaging restrictions. For ex ample, the two regulations use different labels 
and warnings/risk phrases, and it is not clear that the classifications under the CLP Regulation will 
have the same downstream consequences as the classifications under the DSD. 
 In view of the above, does the EC intend to notif y the draft ATP 1 to the TBT Committee, and to duly 
take into account the questions and comments pr esented by other WTO Members concerning the 
classification of nickel compounds?  Answer
 
The European Commission has notified the TBT Committee concerning the Commission Regulation amending, for the purposes of its adaptation to technical and scientific progress, Regulation (EC) 
No. 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures, amending and repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 
1999/45/EC, and amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 as: 
- a new addendum on the EC TBT notification concerning the Draft Commission Directive amending, 
for the purpose of its adaptation to technica l progress, for the 30th time, Council Directive 
67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regula tions and administrative provisions relating to 
the classification, packaging and labelling of  dangerous substances (G/TBT/N/EEC/151/Add.2) 
 - a new addendum on the EC TBT notification concerning the Draft Commission Directive 
amending, for the purpose of its adaptation to technical progress, for the 31st time, Council Directive  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 17 
 
 
 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regula tions and administrative provisions relating to 
the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substan ces (G/TBT/N/EEC/212/add.3)  
 - a new addendum on the EC TBT notification con cerning the Proposal for a Regulation of 
the European Parliament and of the Council on cla ssification, labelling and packaging of substances 
and mixtures, and amending Directive 67/548/EEC and Regulation (EC) No. 1907/2006 
(G/TBT/N/EEC/163/Add.2) 
The proposal was circulated to WTO members on March 20, 2009.  
Member States represented in the REACH Committ ee gave a unanimous favourable opinion for the 
1st ATP on 25 March 2009.   
The 1st ATP to the CLP regulation has been notified as an addendum to the 30th and 31st ATPs and 
CLP regulation, and not as a new regulation, because it does not introduce any new technical 
regulations: the substances and preparations covere d in the 1st ATP to the CLP regulation are the 
same ones as those notified under the 30 and 31st  ATP. 
 There is nothing substantially or  politically new in the 1
st ATP in that it does not set out new 
classifications, but 'mechanica lly' transfers the harmonised cla ssifications contained in 30th and 31st 
ATPs to Annex VI to the CLP Regulation.  This tr ansfer is necessary becau se, upon its entry into force 
on 20 January 2009, the CLP Regulation deleted Annex I to Directive 67/548/EEC, which the 30th and 
31st ATPs purported to amend. In addition, the 1st ATP provides for substances contained in Directive 
2008/58/EC and in Directive 2009/2/EC, the corresponding  classification and labelling converted to 
the GHS classification and labelling codes. This translation has been done on the basis of the 
translation table of the Annex VII to the CLP regul ation as was the case for all substances curently 
listed in the Annex VI of the CLP regulation. 
 
(B) SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY (SPS)  Question 36 
The European Commission states that  the principle of regionalisation is applied to Brazilian exports 
of bovine fresh meat.  
Could the EC clarify why it requires that imports of such products from regions of Brazil recognized 
as free of food and mouth disease with vaccination both by the OIE and the EC itself have to be deboned and maturated when those requirement s, according the recommendations of the OIE 
(Article 8.8.23 of the Terrestrial Animal Health Co de), should only be applied to the exports of areas 
infected by food and mouth disease? 
 
Answer
 
The Commission and the Member States (EC) have al ways stated that this is one point where EC 
don’t agree with the OIE standards and have always expressed concern s over virus circulation when 
vaccination is carried out. EC responses to the OIE on this can be found in a great number of 
submissions made to the OIE on EC website ov er the years. The EC policy is consistent and 
non-discriminatory as EC apply it to all countries free of FMD with vaccination, not just Brazil. The EC policy is science based, even if not based on the OI E international standard and it is supported by 
the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) opinion of  2006. The EFSA is the corner stone of EU risk 
assessments regarding food and feed safety. It provides independent scientific advice and clear 
communication on existing and emerging risks.  
 EC believe that EC measures are fully in line w ith the SPS agreement and therefore are fully justified 
in only allowing de-boned and matured beef from a country where FMD vaccination takes place (in 
particular from Brazil and other South American countries) where outbreaks of foot and mouth have WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 18  
 
 occurred in spite of vaccina tion. See the website at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/food/international/organisations/oie_en.htm and the EFSA opinion at: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/cs/BlobServer/Scien tific_Opinion/ahaw_op_ej313_fmd_en1.pdf?ssbinary=
true 
 
Question 37  
Regarding the control of histamine, could the EC clarify the reasons for adopting the HPLC method as 
standard  when the Codex Alimentarius recommends the fluometric method?  
Answer
 
The HPLC method used as the reference met hod [Commission Regulation (EC) No 2073/2005 of 
15 November 2005 on microbiological criteria for foodstu ffs] within EC has exactly the same level of 
performance as the method recommended by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. It has been chosen 
by all the EC scientific experts and its Member States as it is much easier to implement on grounds 
and quicker than the Codex one. HPLC method is ve ry accurate, sensitive, reproducible and quicker 
than the method AOAC 977.13 (too long in practice).  
Question 38  
Para 78. The EC's alert system has been strengthe ned and broadened to include feed (Rapid Alert 
System for Food and Feed). Under this system, Member States are required to notify the Commission immediately about measures (requiring rapid action) th ey have taken to restrict the sale of products, 
product withdrawals or recalls of food or feed in order to protect human and animal health. Special 
powers were given to the Commission to implement emergency measures to contain serious risks to 
human or animal health, or to the environment in the EC (Article 53 of the regulation).  
The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF)  makes public, frequently unjustifiably, through 
its webpage, the name of products, and their r espective country of origin, without giving the 
producers, or their governments, the opportunity to present their arguments. It should be noted that the 
mere presence, on the RASFF webpage, of the name of a product, related to a country, could be 
unjustifiably detrimental to its  public and commercial image. 
 Taking into account the SPS Agreement requirement to protect "legitimate commercial interests2 
(Annex C, 1, d of the Agreement), could the EC cl arify what steps are being taken to ensure that  
affected parties are given full disclosure of all re quested information with a view to permitting the 
investigation of the alleged sanitary or phytosanitary problem?  
Answer
 
The SPS Agreement, in the Annex C, 1, d lays down that the "confidentiality of information about 
imported products arising from or supplied in connection with control, inspection and approval is 
respected in a way no less favourable than for domestic products  and in such a manner that legitimate 
commercial interests are protected", and the EC is  in fully compliance with this statement. 
Concerning the opportunity for en terprises of presenting their argume nts after a RASFF notification, 
the Regulation (EC) No 882/20043 lays down in the art. 11 (Sampling and Analysis) at points 5; 6 and 
7 the possibility to ask for supplementary expert opinion in the case of disagreement with the 
competent authorities (see below): 
The competent authorities shall establish adequate pro cedures in order to guarantee the right of feed 
and food business operators whose products are subj ect to sampling and analysis to apply for a 
supplementary expert opinion, without prejudice to the obligation of competent authorities to take 
prompt action in case of emergency. 
                                                      
3 Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on 
official controls performed to ensure the verification of  compliance with feed and fo od law, animal health and 
animal welfare rules.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 19 
 
 
 In particular, they shall ensure that feed and food business operators can obtain sufficient numbers of 
samples for a supplementary expert opinion, unless im possible in case of highly perishable products or 
very low quantity of available substrate. Samples must be handled and labelled in such a way as to guarantee both their legal and analytical 
validity. 
 
Question 39 
Para. 84 A new system for pesticide maximum residue  levels (MRLs) in food, which entered into 
force on 1 September 2008, consolidates the divergen t national lists of MRLs  and MRLs harmonized 
at the EC level, with the aim of, inter alia, elimin ating inappropriate technical barriers to trade. After 
finalization of the harmonization process, the overall system is to be simplified; 500,000 national 
MRLs are to be replaced by 75,000 harmonized  EC MRLs. The new MRL regulation covers all 
agricultural products, including products of animal origin and processed pr oducts, intended for human 
consumption or feed use. MRLs are specified fo r about 500 pesticides;  for non-specified (other) 
pesticides, a default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg applies.   
 
Could the EC clarify the technical reasons for establishing, through EU norms (Directive 91/414 and 
Regulation 396/05), for many  substances, reference values that are far below maximum residue levels 
(MRL) set by the Codex Alimentarius? In this r espect, please comment on the fact that the WTO SPS 
Agreement establishes (Article 3:1) that "Members shall base their sanitary or phytosanitary measures 
on international standards, guidelines or recommendations, where they exist". 
 
Answer
 
The EC always include the Codex values in the le gislation on MRLs, and the EC do not agree with 
your statement of "for many substances, reference  values that are far below maximum residue levels 
(MRL) set by the Codex Alimentarius", there are not many cases in such situations. At some 
occasions, the EC request its own scientific body, i.e. the EFSA, to review  the risk assessments 
provided by international bodies to ensure they a re fully applicable to the European environment and 
population.   
 
Question 40 
A proposed Regulation, currently under discussion in  the European Communities, adopts the criteria 
of "hazard assessment", instead of "risk assessment", in  the approval procedures of plant protection 
products. In this context, it should be remembered  that that the WTO SPS Ag reement establishes that 
‘Members shall ensure that their sanitary or ph ytosanitary measures are based on an assessment, as 
appropriate to the circumstances, of the risks to hu man, animal or plant life or health, taking into 
account risk assessment techniques developed by  the relevant international organizations’ 
(Article 5:1). It should be noted, also, that, t echnically, the "hazard assessment" (i.e., determining 
whether a particular substance is or is not causally li nked to particular effects) is only the first step in 
a complete risk assessment procedure.   Could the EC provide the scientific justifica tion for the proposal to adopt a hazard assessment 
criteria? 
 
Answer
 
One of the main aims of the proposal for a Regul ation concerning the placing of plant protection 
products on the market, which is going to be adopted  in the second quarter of 2009, is to maintain a 
high level of protection for humans, animals and the environment.  
The proposed criteria for approval of active subs tances are essential to ac hieve these objectives: 
substances which are persistent in the environmen t, accumulating in living organisms or very toxic 
should not be approved for use in plant protection products. The same applies to exposing farmers or 
consumers to substances which are proven to be carcinogenic, mutagenic, toxic to reproduction or 
which affect fertility or reproductive behaviour (endocrine disruptors).  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 20  
 
 EC reject the criticism that the criteria are only haz ard based and not risk based, because exposure is 
in fact taken into account: these highly hazardous su bstances can be approved if exposure to them is 
negligible (e.g. closed system).  Furthermore, derogation introduces the possibility to approve active substances under restrictive 
conditions for a limited time in order to control a serious danger for plant health. This adds another 
important element of a risk based approach to the provisions of the text: the risk (use of highly 
hazardous substances) is balanced against the bene fit (controlling a serious danger for plant health, 
e.g. spread of a dangerous or a resistant pest). 
 
(4) MEASURES AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND TRADE 
(IV) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (IPR)  
Question 41 
Para. 199 mentions that "[i]mpr oved cooperation between customs a nd industry has enabled Customs 
to better target suspected shipment s and to recognize counterfeit goods".  
Considering the increasing number of generic medici nes seized by customs authorities at EC borders, 
could the EC clarify whether the generic industry is considered as an "industry" for the effect of the "co-operation" undertaken by customs? In case the customs authorities that seize goods do not consult 
the potentially affected generic industry, could the EC clarify whether there is a reason no to do so? 
 
Answer
 
The EC is not aware of an increase in the numbe r of generic medicines intercepted by customs 
authorities at EC borders. So far only a very limited number of cases have been reported to the EC. 
The generic industry, which is affected by infr inging activities, is of course considered as an 
"industry" for the purposes of "co-operation" w ith customs. Insofar as generic producers hold 
intellectual property rights (ex: trademarks), they ar e welcome to work with customs towards a better 
identification of goods infringing their rights. 
 
A European Parliament Resolution of 18.12.08 on the impact of counterfeiting on international trade 
states that "… a distinction needs to be drawn between generic medicines, the distribution of and 
trading in which should be encour aged, both in the EU and in developing countries, and counterfeit 
medicines (…)" (http://www.europarl.europa. eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P6-TA-
2008-0634+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN&language=EN). 
Question 42 
Could the EC specify the measures that are being undertaken to comply with this understanding? 
 
Answer  
The EC welcomes the resolution of the European Par liament which confirms w hat the EC has done so 
far. Access to medicines is and remains one of the main priorities for the EC in order to support 
health policies in developing countries. The EC is therefore fully committed to ensure the fluidity of 
trade in affordable medicines to developing countr ies. Some examples: the EU has also adopted a 
regulation on tiered-pricing which encourages Eu ropean producers to significantly increase supplies 
of medicines at lower prices to developing countries. In terms of funded projects, the EU has taken the initiative to launch a number of projects and progr ams in developing countri es from research to 
production, to procurement and to delivery, including qua lity control. That is the case, for example, of 
the EU Africa Clinical Trial Partnership with a financing frame of 800 million € and the contribution 
of the European Commission to the Global Fund fo r AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria of 672 million € 
since 2002.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 21 
 
 
 Question 43 
Considering the increasing number of customs seiz ures of generic medicines in transit through the 
EC´s borders on the charge of "counterfeiting" (or "c ounterfeit medicines"), could the EC clarify how 
these seizures are in line with the ru ling by the European Parliament? 
 Answer
 
The EC is not aware of an increase in the numbe r of generic medicines intercepted by customs 
authorities at EC borders. So far only a very limited number of cases have been reported to the EC. 
Such shipments are detained, pending a decision by th e right holder whether to pursue the case before 
the national court. The shipments are subsequently  released as soon as the right holder indicates 
within strict time limits that court proceedings will not be pursued. Regarding outstanding cases, the 
situation is in the hands of the competent national co urts on the basis of a violation of law other then 
intellectual property law. The EC subscribes to th e resolution of the European Parliament that the 
legitimate trade in generic drugs  should not be hampered by unnecessary measures. On the other 
hand, customs authorities have an important contribution to make in stopping the traffic of potentially 
dangerous products such as fake medicines in tr ansit. Notably in these few cases, the generic 
medicines have been detained on the charge of infringing a patent right, not as counterfeit. It is important to note that considerable and increa singly high numbers of counterfeit pharmaceutical 
products originating from the same country as the generic products in question are seized each year 
at the EU borders. 
 
(IV) TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR (3) ENERGY 
 
Question 44 
The Report indicates that the EU has adopted a targ et of 20% renewable energy sources in 2020, of 
which at least 10% in the transport sector. In view of current technological and market trends, the vast 
majority of the renewable energy to be used in the transport sector is likely to come from biofuels, 
especially biodiesel.  The Renewable Energies Directive advocates a "balanced  approach" in the area of biofuels. In Recital 
15, it states that "it is both likely and desirable that the target will in fact be met through a 
combination of domestic production and imports". 
The main standard applicable for 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 which severely limit the use of 
other vegetable oils imported by the EU, such as soyb ean oil or palm oil. These specifications have no 
reasonable technical or environmental justification and pose a significant technical barrier to trade in 
biodiesel.  In its Communication on a EU Strategy for Biofuels (2006/34), the European Commission advocates an amendment of standard EN 14214 in order to ‘fac ilitate the use of a wider range of vegetable oils’. 
 
Bearing in mind the "balanced approach" advocated  by the Renewable Energies Directive, and the 
recognition of the need to amend standard EN 14214,  when does the EC expect to have a new set of 
technical specifications for biodiesel in place? 
 
Answer
 
The EU diesel market is characterised by a very high percentage of passenger cars in addition to 
heavy duty engine vehicles in contrast to the US , Brazil and Argentina where diesel fuel is used 
primarily in heavy duty engine vehicles. Given the fact that in the EU biodiesel market numerous 
vegetable oils are used it is n ecessary to ensure that the final biodiesel product from all these 
resources does not biodegrade/ oxidised with time and that the biodiesel maintains its fuel properties WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 22  
 
 and quality over long periods of storage time. CE N is working for a new stability method but this 
work has not been completed yet. Therefore it is necessary to maintain the standard until an 
appropriate new method is develope d and approved. Finally it is worth mentioning that the EN 14214 
standard is not a barrier to trade since in 2008 the US biodiesel industry exported about 
1,400,000 metric tonnes soya-based biodiesel to th e EU (see also the White Paper on Internationally 
Compatible Standards: 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/biofue ls/doc/standard/white_paper_icbs_final.pdf.) 
 
APPENDIX TABLE AIV.1, PAGE 189  
Question 45 Table AIV.1 shows that simple average applied MFN tariff rate was raised for "Residues and waste 
from the food industries;  prepared animal fodder (Code 23) since the previous TPR in 2007 (From 14,1 in 2006 to 15,4 in 2008).   
Please explain on which lines the applied tariff rates we re raised on the basis of the EC’s tariff lines. 
Answer
 
The slight increase is merely due to changes in the nomenclature which ha ve been streamlined and 
simplified and does not correspond to any changes in th e applied duties, as a comparison between the 
previous nomenclature and the current one shows.  
Question 46 Please explain in detail the reason why they were raised. 
 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 45. 
 
Question 47 
Please provide data showing the distributions of import volumes nd tariff rates. 
 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 45. 
 
Question 48 
Please explain the mechanism of tariff rate modification. 
 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 45. 
 Question 49 
Please explain the regulations which provide time frames  to modify tariff rates in detail. If the EC 
does not have any, please explain ECl’s plans to create such regulations for the purpose of enhancing predictability. 
 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 45.  Question 50 
Could the EC explain the rationale for tariff p eaks applying to the above -mentioned sector having 
been increased, and whether a subsequent  return to lower levels is foreseen?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 23 
 
 
 Answer  
Please see answer to question 45.  Question 51 
Table AIV.1 shows that simple average applie d MFN tariff rate was raised for "Oil seeds and 
oleaginous fruits;  misc grains, seeds and fruit;  in dustrial or medicinal plants;  straw and fodder" 
(Code 12) since the previous TPR in 2007 (From 1,3 in 2006 to 1,6 in 2008).   Please explain on which lines the applied tariff rates we re raised on the basis of the EC’s tariff lines. 
Answer
 
The slight increase is merely due to changes in the nomenclature which ha ve been streamlined and 
simplified and does not correspond to any changes in th e applied duties, as a comparison between the 
previous nomenclature and the current one shows.  Question 52 
Please explain in detail the reason why they were raised. 
 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 51.  Question 53 
Please provide data showing the distributions of import volumes and tariff rates. 
 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 51.  
Question 54 Please explain the mechanism of tariff rate modification. 
 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 51.  
Question 55 Please explain the regulations which provide time frames  to modify tariff rates in detail. If the EC 
does not have any, please explain ECl’s plans to create such regulations for the purpose of enhancing predictability. 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 51. 
 Question 56 
Could the EC explain the rationale for tariff p eaks applying to the above -mentioned sector having 
been increased, and whether a subsequent  return to lower levels is foreseen? 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 51. 
 Question 57 
Table AIV.1 shows that simple average applied MF N tariff rate was raised for "Preparations of 
vegetables, fruit, nuts or other parts of plants" (Code 20) since the previous TPR in 2007 (From 23,4 
in 2006 to 23,7 in 2008).  
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 24  
 
 Please explain on which lines the applied tariff rates we re raised on the basis of the EC’s tariff lines. 
Answer
 
The slight increase is merely due to changes in the nomenclature which ha ve been streamlined and 
simplified and does not correspond to any changes in th e applied duties, as a comparison between the 
previous nomenclature and the current one shows. 
 
Question 58 
Please explain in detail the reason why they were raised. 
 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 57. 
 Question 59 
Please provide data showing the distributions of import volumes nd tariff rates. 
 Answer
 
Please see answer to question 57.  
Question 60 
Please explain the mechanism of tariff rate modification. 
 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 57.  
 Question 61 
Please explain the regulations which provide time frames  to modify tariff rates in detail. If the EC 
does not have any, please explain ECl’s plans to create such regulations for the purpose of enhancing 
predictability. 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 57.  
Question 62 
Could the EC explain the rationale for tariff p eaks applying to the above -mentioned sector having 
been increased, and whether a subsequent  return to lower levels is foreseen?  
Answer  
Please see answer to question 57.  
Question 63 
Table AIV.1 shows that simple average applied MFN tariff rate was raised for "Preparations of meat, 
of fish or of crustaceans, molluscs or other aquatic invertebrates" (Code 16) since the previous TPR in 
2007 (From 17,2 in 2006 to 18,6 in 2008).  
 Please explain on which lines the applied tariff rates we re raised on the basis of the EC’s tariff lines. 
Answer
 
The slight increase is merely due to changes in the nomenclature which ha ve been streamlined and 
simplified and does not correspond to any changes in th e applied duties, as a comparison between the 
previous nomenclature and the current one shows. 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 25 
 
 
 Question 64 
Please explain in detail the reason why they were raised. 
 
Answer 
Please see answer to question 63.  
Question 65 
Please provide data showing the distributions of import volumes and tariff rates. 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 63.  
Question 66 
Please explain the mechanism of tariff rate modification. 
 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 63.  
Question 67 
Please explain the regulations which provide time frames  to modify tariff rates in detail. If the EC 
does not have any, please explain ECl’s plans to crea te such regulations for the purpose of enhancing 
predictability. 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 63.  
Question 68 
Could the EC explain the rationale for tariff p eaks applying to the above -mentioned sector having 
been increased, and whether a subsequent  return to lower levels is foreseen? 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 63. 
Question 69 
Table AIV.1 shows that simple average applied MFN tariff rate was raised for "Tobacco and 
manufactured tobacco substitutes" (Code 24) since th e previous TPR in 2007 (From 19,7 in 2006 to 
28,6 in 2008).   Please explain on which lines the applied tariff rates we re raised on the basis of the EC’s tariff lines. 
 
Answer
 
The slight increase is merely due to changes in the nomenclature which ha ve been streamlined and 
simplified and does not correspond to any changes in th e applied duties, as a comparison between the 
previous nomenclature and the current one shows.  
Question 70 Please explain in detail the reason why they were raised. 
 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 69.  
Question 71 
Please provide data showing the distributions of import volumes and tariff rates. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 26  
 
 Answer
 
Please see answer to question 69.  
Question 72  
Please explain the mechanism of tariff rate modification. 
 Answer
 
Please see answer to question 69.  
Question 73  
Please explain the regulations which provide time frames  to modify tariff rates in detail. If the EC 
does not have any, please explain ECl’s plans to create such regulations for the purpose of enhancing 
predictability . 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 69.  
Question 74 
Could the EC explain the rationale for tariff p eaks applying to the above -mentioned sector having 
been increased, and whether a subsequent  return to lower levels is foreseen?  
Answer  
Please see answer to question 69.  
Question 75 
Table AIV.1 shows that simple average applied MFN tariff rate was raised for "Aircraft, spacecraft, 
and parts thereof" (Code 88) since the previous TPR in 2007 (From 2,0 in 2006 to 2,1 in 2008).  
 
Please explain on which lines the applied tariff rates we re raised on the basis of the EC’s tariff lines. 
Answer  
The slight increase is merely due to changes in the nomenclature which ha ve been streamlined and 
simplified and does not correspond to any changes in th e applied duties, as a comparison between the 
previous nomenclature and the current one shows. 
 Question 76 
Please explain in detail the reason why they were raised. 
 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 75.  
Question 77 
Please provide data showing the distributions of import volumes nd tariff rates. 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 75.  
Question 78  
Please explain the mechanism of tariff rate modification.  Answer
 
Please see answer to question 75.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 27 
 
 
 Question 79  
Please explain the regulations which provide time frames  to modify tariff rates in detail. If the EC 
does not have any, please explain ECl’s plans to create such regulations for the purpose of enhancing predictability. 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 75. 
 Question 80 
Could the EC explain the rationale for tariff p eaks applying to the above -mentioned sector having 
been increased, and whether a subsequent  return to lower levels is foreseen? 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 75.  
Question 81 
Table AIV.1 shows that simple average applied MFN tariff rate was raised for "Organic chemicals" 
(Code 29) since the previous TPR in 2007 (From 4,3 in 2006 to 4,5 in 2008).  
 
Please explain on which lines the applied tariff rates we re raised on the basis of the EC’s tariff lines. 
 
Answer  
The slight increase is merely due to changes in the nomenclature which ha ve been streamlined and 
simplified and does not correspond to any changes in th e applied duties, as a comparison between the 
previous nomenclature and the current one shows. 
 Question 82 
Please explain in detail the reason why they were raised. 
 Answer
 
Please see answer to question 81.  
Question 83 
Please provide data showing the distributions of import volumes nd tariff rates. 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 81.  
Question 84 
Please explain the mechanism of tariff rate modification. 
 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 81.  
Question 85  
Please explain the regulations which provide time frames  to modify tariff rates in detail. If the EC 
does not have any, please explain ECl’s plans to create such regulations for the purpose of enhancing predictability . 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 81.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 28  
 
 Question 86 
Could the EC explain the rationale for tariff p eaks applying to the above -mentioned sector having 
been increased, and whether a subsequent  return to lower levels is foreseen? 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 81.  
Question 87 
Table AIV.1 shows that simple average applied MFN tariff rate was raised for "Electrical machinery 
and equipment and parts thereof;  sound record ers and reproducers, television image and sound 
recorders and reproducers, and parts and accessories of such articles" (Code 85) since the previous 
TPR in 2007 (From 2,8 in 2006 to 3,0 in 2008).  
 
Please explain on which lines the applied tariff rates we re raised on the basis of the EC’s tariff lines. 
 
Answer  
The slight increase is merely due to changes in the nomenclature which ha ve been streamlined and 
simplified and does not correspond to any changes in th e applied duties, as a comparison between the 
previous nomenclature and the current one shows. 
 
Question 88 
Please explain in detail the reason why they were raised. 
 Answer
 
Please see answer to question 87.  
Question 89 
Please provide data showing the distributions of import volumes and tariff rates. 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 87.  
Question 90 
Please explain the mechanism of tariff rate modification. 
 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 87.  
Question 91 
Please explain the regulations which provide time frames  to modify tariff rates in detail. If the EC 
does not have any, please explain ECl’s plans to create such regulations for the purpose of enhancing predictability. 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 87.  
Question 92 
Could the EC explain the rationale for tariff p eaks applying to the above -mentioned sector having 
been increased, and whether a subsequent  return to lower levels is foreseen? 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 87.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 29 
 
 
 Question 93 
Table AIV.1 shows that simple average applied MFN tariff rate was raised for "Animal or vegetable 
fats and oils and their cleavage products;  prepared ed ible fats;  animal or ve getable waxes" (Code 15) 
since the previous TPR in 2007 (From 9,2 in 2006 to 9,6 in 2008).   
Please explain on which lines the applied tariff rates we re raised on the basis of the EC’s tariff lines. 
 
Answer
 
The slight increase is merely due to changes in the nomenclature which ha ve been streamlined and 
simplified and does not correspond to any changes in th e applied duties, as a comparison between the 
previous nomenclature and the current one shows. 
 Question 94 
Please explain in detail the reason why they were raised. 
 Answer
 
Please see answer to question 93.  
 Question 95 
Please provide data showing the distributions of import volumes nd tariff rates. 
 Answer
 
Please see answer to question 93.  
 
Question 96 
Please explain the mechanism of tariff rate modification.  
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 93.  Question 97 
Please explain the regulations which provide time frames  to modify tariff rates in detail. If the EC 
does not have any, please explain ECl’s plans to create such regulations for the purpose of enhancing 
predictability. 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 93.  
Question 98 
Could the EC explain the rationale for tariff p eaks applying to the above -mentioned sector having 
been increased, and whether a subsequent  return to lower levels is foreseen? 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 93.  
Question 99 
Table AIV.1 shows that simple average applied MFN tariff rate was raised for "Beverages, spirits and 
vinegar" (Code 22) since the previous TPR in 2007 (From 6,5 in 2006 to 10,2 in 2008).  
 
Please explain on which lines the applied tariff rates we re raised on the basis of the EC’s tariff lines. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 30  
 
 Answer
 
The slight increase is merely due to changes in the nomenclature which ha ve been streamlined and 
simplified and does not correspond to any changes in th e applied duties, as a comparison between the 
previous nomenclature and the current one shows. 
 
Question 100 
Please explain in detail the reason why they were raised. 
 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 99.  
Question 101 
Please provide data showing the distributions of import volumes and tariff rates. 
 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 99.  
 
Question 102 
Please explain the mechanism of tariff rate modification. 
 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 99. 
 
Question 103  
Please explain the regulations which provide time frames  to modify tariff rates in detail. If the EC 
does not have any, please explain ECl’s plans to create such regulations for the purpose of enhancing predictability. 
 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 99.  Question 104 
Could the EC explain the rationale for tariff p eaks applying to the above -mentioned sector having 
been increased, and whether a subsequent  return to lower levels is foreseen? 
 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 99.  
Question 105 Table AIV.1 shows that simple average applied MFN tariff rate was raised for "Raw hides and skins 
(other than furskins) and leather" (Code 41) sin ce the previous TPR in 2007 (From 2,6 in 2006 to 2,7 
in 2008).   Please explain on which lines the applied tariff rates we re raised on the basis of the EC’s tariff lines. 
 
Answer
 
The slight increase is merely due to changes in the nomenclature which ha ve been streamlined and 
simplified and does not correspond to any changes in th e applied duties, as a comparison between the 
previous nomenclature and the current one shows. 
 
Question 106 
Please explain in detail the reason why they were raised. 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 31 
 
 
 Answer  
Please see answer to question 105.  
 Question 107 
Please provide data showing the distributions of import volumes and tariff rates. Question (4) Please explain the mechanism of tariff rate modification. 
 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 105.  
 
Question 108 
Please explain the regulations which provide time frames  to modify tariff rates in detail. If the EC 
does not have any, please explain ECl’s plans to create such regulations for the purpose of enhancing predictability.  Answer
 
Please see answer to question 105.  Question 109 
Could the EC explain the rationale for tariff p eaks applying to the above -mentioned sector having 
been increased, and whether a subsequent  return to lower levels is foreseen? 
 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 105.  Question 110 
Table AIV.1 shows that simple average applied MFN tariff rate was raised for "Furniture;  bedding, 
mattresses, mattress supports, cushions and similar stuffed furnishings;  la mps and lighting fittings, 
not elsewhere specified or included;  illuminated signs, illuminated name-plates" (Code 94) since the 
previous TPR in 2007 (From 2,1 in 2006 to 2,2 in 2008).   Please explain on which lines the applied tariff rates we re raised on the basis of the EC’s tariff lines. 
 
Answer
 
The slight increase is merely due to changes in the nomenclature which ha ve been streamlined and 
simplified and does not correspond to any changes in th e applied duties, as a comparison between the 
previous nomenclature and the current one shows. 
 
Question 111 
Please explain in detail the reason why they were raised. 
 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 110. 
 
Question 112 
Please provide data showing the distributions of import volumes and tariff rates. 
 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 110. 
 Question 113 
Please explain the mechanism of tariff rate modification. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 32  
 
 Answer
 
Please see answer to question 110.  Question 114 
Please explain the regulations which provide time frames  to modify tariff rates in detail. If the EC 
does not have any, please explain ECl’s plans to crea te such regulations for the purpose of enhancing 
predictability.  
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 110. 
 
Question 115 
Could the EC explain the rationale for tariff p eaks applying to the above -mentioned sector having 
been increased, and whether a subsequent  return to lower levels is foreseen? 
 Answer
 
Please see answer to question 110.  
 Question 116 
Table AIV.1 shows that simple average applied MF N tariff rate was raised for "Sugars and sugar 
confectionery" (Code 17) since the previous TPR in 2007 (From 27,3 in 2006 to 35,7 in 2008).  
 
Please explain on which lines the applied tariff rates we re raised on the basis of the EC’s tariff lines. 
 
Answer
 
The slight increase is merely due to changes in the nomenclature which ha ve been streamlined and 
simplified and does not correspond to any changes in th e applied duties, as a comparison between the 
previous nomenclature and the current one shows.  Question 117 
Please explain in detail the reason why they were raised. 
 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 116.  Question 118 
Please provide data showing the distributions of import volumes and tariff rates.  
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 116.  
 Question 119 
Please explain the mechanism of tariff rate modification.  
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 116.  Question 120 
Please explain the regulations which provide time frames  to modify tariff rates in detail. If the EC 
does not have any, please explain ECl’s plans to create such regulations for the purpose of enhancing predictability.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 33 
 
 
 Answer  
Please see answer to question 116.  Question 121 
Could the EC explain the rationale for tariff p eaks applying to the above -mentioned sector having 
been increased, and whether a subsequent  return to lower levels is foreseen? 
 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 116.  
 
Question 122 
Table AIV.1 shows that simple average applied MF N tariff rate was raised for "chemical products" 
(Code 38) since the previous TPR in 2007 (From 5,8 in 2006 to 6,3 in 2008).  
 
Please explain on which lines the applied tariff rates we re raised on the basis of the EC’s tariff lines. 
 Answer
 
The slight increase is merely due to changes in the nomenclature which ha ve been streamlined and 
simplified and does not correspond to any changes in th e applied duties, as a comparison between the 
previous nomenclature and the current one shows. 
 
Question 123 
Please explain in detail the reason why they were raised. 
 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 122. 
 
Question 124 
Please provide data showing the distributions of import volumes nAd tariff rates. 
 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 122. 
 
Question 125 
Please explain the mechanism of tariff rate modification. 
 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 122. 
 Question 126  
Please explain the regulations which provide time frames  to modify tariff rates in detail. If the EC 
does not have any, please explain ECl’s plans to create such regulations for the purpose of enhancing predictability.  Answer
 
Please see answer to question 122.  
 
Question 127 
Could the EC explain the rationale for tariff p eaks applying to the above -mentioned sector having 
been increased, and whether a subsequent  return to lower levels is foreseen? 
 
Answer  
Please see answer to question 122. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 34  
 
 CHINA
 
 
Question 1 
Paragraph 16 on Page 39 of the Secretariat Report notes that the simple average applied MFN tariff is 
estimated at 6.7% for 2008 (6.9% in 2006), with rates ranging from zero to 604.3% (an ad valorem 
equivalent) on isoglucose. According to China’s ob servation, tariff items the rate of which is higher 
than 15% account for 9% of the total tariff lines, ma inly including meat, fish, vegetable, fruit and its 
products, food, beverage, tobacco, textiles, shoes a nd automobiles. For example, the tariff of some 
fish products exceeds 20%, together with autom obiles over 22% and tobacco over 74.9%. It seems 
that these are mostly products of export interest s to developing Members. Could the EC please 
explain what measures it will take to provide more  meaningful market acces s for these products in 
favour of developing Members?  
Answer  
The EC provides solely MFN treatment to only nine WTO Members: Australia, Canada, Chinese 
Taipei, Hong Kong China, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Singapore and the United States.  All other 
WTO Members, including developing and least devel oped countries, enjoy preferential access to the 
EC market, either on the basis of trade agreements which they have concluded with the EC or on the 
basis of autonomous trade preferen ces granted to them, for example in the framework of the EC 
Generalised System of Preferences (GSP).  Th ese preferences are far-reaching - all LDCs, for 
example, benefit from the Everything But Arms (EBA)  scheme which provides for duty-free treatment 
on all imports with the exception of the 23 tariff lines in HS Chapter 93 (arms and ammunition) –
while preferences granted under autonomous regim es such as the GSP are non-reciprocal.  
Accordingly, the issue of whether the EC has plans  to reduce peak MFN tariffs on products of export 
interest to developing countries is redundant insofar as developing countries already enjoy preferential access to the EC market  for such products.  And where MFN tariff rates do remain of 
relevance for developing countries, or at least for some  of them, the EC has shown by the positions it 
has taken in the Agriculture and NAMA negotiating gr oups that it is ready to reduce its peak tariffs 
significantly as part of a balanced, comp rehensive and ambitious outcome to the DDA. 
 Question 2 
Paragraph 16 on Page 39 of the Secr etariat Report notes that there is a wide dispersion of the rates, 
essentially in agriculture, mainly due to the imposition of non-ad valorem tariffs and of high tariffs of 
17.9%. It is noted that the EC maintains seasona l tariff on agricultural products in an opaque and 
complicated manner. With mixed types of tariff, such as specific, alternate and compound duties, and 
frequent changes in standard import price of thes e agricultural products in place in the EC, Foreign 
exporters constantly face procedural difficulties when making applications to the border customs 
authorities. Therefore, could the EC please describe  the rationale for maintaining seasonal tariff and 
inform us whether there is any plan to abolish these measures? 
 
Answer
 
The EC entry price system was accepted as part of the Uruguay Round agreement. EC seasonal tariffs 
are bound and are based on seasonal tariff lines, wh ich are bound as well. Seasonal tariffs are a 
normal factor in fresh fruit and vegetables trade wh ere seasonal domestic production is accompanied 
by "seasonal tariffs", aimed at providing some form of protection to the domestic producers. The 
system works well and we have not received any complaints from importers. 
 The EC firmly rejects the idea that the tar iffs are applied in an opaque and complicated 
manner. If it were so, the EU would not be th e first importer of the main fresh fruit and 
vegetables traded at world level, (37% of world imports), desp ite a high and dynamic 
domestic production. EU imports per head of the most traded fresh fruit (oranges, apples, 
pears) are higher than those of other large ma rkets. The EU could not have become the first 
commercial area in the world if its import regime was really prohibitive.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 35 
 
 
 The question also talks about daily changes in the Standard Import Values. It should be 
stressed that this does not correspond to a change  in tariff. Under the current functioning of 
the entry price system, an operator can choo se between three methods for classifying a 
product in the Customs tariff of the Eu ropean Communities (customs-clearance):  
 
i) the invoice method, if an invoice exists at the time of declaration for free circulation; 
ii) the so-called deductive method, which is based on the lodging of a security and serves to 
postpone the presentation of an invoice at the time of sale of the imported goods; iii) standard import values (SIV), that is basically  a daily average of daily import prices by 
origin and by product. This SIV is daily ca lculated by the European Commission on the basis 
of daily communications from the Member States. 
 The last method is the most popular one for purpo ses of customs clearance in the case of fruit 
and vegetables subject to the entry price system . The importers are attached to this system 
because it gives them transparency and predictability. 
 
We would also like to underline that, in the DDA  framework, the EU is ready to simplify its 
tariffs on the basis of Falconer's Rev 4 text  (i.e. to keep only 15% expressed in non-ad 
valorem terms) under the condition that 5% of compound duties would be authorised. 
 Question 3 
It is reported that the EC maintains an "additiona l tariff" on some sugar and cocoa products, biscuits, 
bread and potatoes according to different ingredients,  such as anhydrous milk fat, milk protein, cane 
sugar and starch, even after the import duty is al ready paid. The EC publishes implementing method 
for the additional tariff annually, which causes co mplication for exporters and excessive production 
cost for manufacturers. Could the EC please provide explanations for applying additional tariff and 
inform us whether there is any plan to abolish these measures? 
 
Answer
 
China refers to an additional duty which was not added by the EC but bound following the Marrakech 
Agreement. The European Commission kindly invites the Chinese delegation to examine Annex 1 of 
the CXL schedule of the Communities where all the explanation is given. 
 
Question 4 
It is noted that, on July 4th, 2007, the EC promulgated Rule (EC) 616/2007, which modified its 
schedule regarding three categories of poultry meat and imposed TRQ administration on these 
products. It is believed that the EC’s recourse to TRQ from the previous single tariff administration 
has compromised its commitment to trade liberal ization. Under the current TRQ system, China 
together with other third countries can only acquire  less than 10% of the TRQ each year. However, 
since China is among the world’s biggest exporters of poultry products, the EC’s current practice has 
impaired and nullified the interests of Chinese expor ters. The EC’s refusal of China’s request for 
consultation for compensation as a result of Schedu le modification on the claim that China does not 
have substantial interests is not justified, fo r the EC banned the importation of poultry meat from 
China in the last few years. In view of the long delay in resolving this i ssue, could the EC please 
indicate whether it intends to bring it to a mutually  satisfactory solution thro ugh bilateral channels? 
Otherwise, China is obliged to consider other options. 
 
Answer  
The EC conducted and finalised Article XXVIII negotiati ons on poultry meat in full compliance with 
the applicable GATT rules and took into considerati on the interests of all WTO members, including 
those suppliers that do not have negotiating rights.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 36  
 
 China's claim was rejected by the EC on the basis that there were no significant quantities of imports 
from China during the reference period used for det ermination of negotiating rights (2003-2005). The 
WTO has clear rules in this respect and China is no t in the same position as certain other Members 
who had historical exports to the EC.  
 
Question 5 
Paragraph 45 on Page 50 of the Secr etariat Report notes that "Import surveillance applies to certain 
textiles, steel products… These products are subject to automatic licences for statistical purposes, and 
to improve control of the origin of the products." China would appreciate it if the EC could share its data regarding China’s steel export into the EC.   Answer
 
In the last EU-China Steel Dialogue, on 12 Ja nuary 2009, it was proposed to proceed with an 
exchange of statistics related to steel. Discussion w ill now take place as to the content of this 
exchange of data. The question of exchanging such info rmation will hence be fully addressed in that 
framework. In the meantime, we invite China to cons ult Eurostat website for b ilateral trade statistics. 
 Question 6 
Paragraph 12 on Page 37 of the Secretariat Report not es that the audit by European Court of Auditors 
points out several weaknesses of the BTI system, su ch as difficulty for the Customs Code Committee 
to adopt measures ensuring the uniform application of the nomenclature within the time limits 
foreseen by the legislation; lack of specific legisla tive time limits to conclude  consultations with other 
Member States concerning divergent BTI; and dela ys in updating the database. It is noted that 
although EU members are supposed to apply the sa me Community Customs Code and implementing 
rules, national customs authorities are left with a leeway in a number of key areas of customs administration, which gives rise to disparate and inconsistent customs administration in EU member 
states. It would be appreciated if the EC could clarify the following point: In different EU member 
states, there are different Customs clarification and valuation standards and procedures, including 
variant information provided to different importers . How does the EC intend to introduce and improve 
the BTI system to ensure a uniform application of Customs clarification and valuation? 
 
Answer
 
The reply to this question is based on the assumpti on that China in fact means "classification" (i.e. 
tariff classification) rather that "clarification".  The assertion that the Member States do not apply Community customs legislation in a uniform 
manner is refuted.  All Member States are obliged to apply the provisions of the Community Customs 
Code (Council Regulation (EEC) 2913/92) and the implementing provisions thereto (Commission 
Regulation (EEC) 2454/93).    Firstly it has to be clarified that the BTI only c oncern tariff classification and do not have any direct 
influence on customs valuation.  With regard to alle ged "variant information" provided to different 
importers, the Court of Auditors did not find this to  be a frequent occurrence or a systemic problem 
with the BTI. 
 Divergent classification decisions are very uncommon.   When such decisions come to light the 
legislative procedures in place to  rectify such instances are initiate d.  The Commission continues to 
impress on Member States the importance of taking all necessary steps to avoid issuing such 
divergent decisions. 
 Question 7 
Customs clearance procedures for imports and export s vary significantly from one Member state to 
another, such as the use of computerized customs process in some Member states but not in others,  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 37 
 
 
 different requirements among Member states for cer tificate of origin, different criteria for the 
inspection of goods, different licensing requirements for the importation of foodstuffs, and different 
procedures for the processing express delivery shipment s. Are there any plans by the EC to address 
these issues for the purpose of trade facilitation? 
 
Answer  
The rules for customs procedures and customs controls  in the EU are the same throughout its customs 
territory, as they are laid down in the Community Customs Code a nd its implementing provisions. The 
EU is constantly working on aligning even further lo cal practices and IT procedures. As far as the 
indicated "requirements among Member states for c ertificates of origin" highlighted in the question 
are concerned, they are all stat ed in Community legislation which doesn't provide for any 
differentiation among Member States. We also wish to  stress that the EC does not have any licencing 
requirements for foodstuffs. 
 
Question 8 
It is noted that the procedures for reviewing entr y statements after goods are released into the EU 
markets varied greatly from one Member state to another, which contributed to excessive commercial 
cost for conducting trade with the EC. Could the EC please clarify whether they have any plan to 
improve the situation, including to unify the procedures in different Member states? 
 
Answer  
Please refer to the answer to question 7.  
Question 9 
As of 1 July 2006, Directive 2002/95/EC of th e European Parliament and of the Council of 
27 January 2003 on the restriction of the use of  certain hazardous substances in electrical and 
electronic equipment (RoHS) entered into force. The RoHS Directive applies to practically all 
categories of electrical and electronic equipments (EEE) for civilian use and has a direct bearing on the export of household applian ces to the European market. 
According to the RoHS Directive, the EU Member  States may, according to their own national laws, 
adopt different measures to inspect EEE produc ts placed on their markets and impose penalties 
applicable to non-compliance with the RoHS Direc tive. However, the RoHS Directive only provides 
very general rules regarding how  to determine compliance of different kinds of EEE products. 
Therefore, the varied implementing standards may cause a series of problems for the manufacturers. For example, it is very likely that a particular  product certified to have satisfied the relevant 
requirements in one EU Member state may be foun d not meeting such requirements in another. The 
divergent inspection fees in different Member st ates may distort the exporting costs of the same 
product placed on the Community market. In addition,  the RoHS Directive has been implemented in 
different ways in different Member states, with di fferent enforcement authorities (including inspection 
and registration bodies) and different instituti ons drafting and circulating the implementing 
regulations, which makes the relevant product stan dards in the Member states too complicated and 
burdensome for the exporters. Sometimes the test r esults for the same product may be different in 
different Member states.  
In view of the implementation of the the RoHS Directive, could the EC please describe when it 
intends to establish detailed guidelines on the implemen tation of the RoHS Directive, together with 
promulgation of a list of exemptions based on sound scientific evidence, providing reference 
experiment methods for certification and providi ng technical assistance to developing Members? 
 
Answer
 
General remarks 
Scope – substances, categories of equipment : The RoHS Directive prohibits the use of four heavy 
metals (lead, cadmium, mercury, hexavalent chromium) and two groups of brominated flame WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 38  
 
 retardants substances (PBBs and PBDEs) in electrica l and electronic equipments which are grouped 
in 10 categories of products. At present, the Direc tive does not apply to medical devices (product-type 
8) and monitoring and control instruments (product-type 9). 
Enforcement/Compliance: Pursuant to Article 4(1) of the RoHS Directive, Member States have to 
ensure that products put on the EU market as from 1 July 2006 conform to the provisions of the 
Directive. The RoHS Directive does not refer to spec ific compliance procedures, certificates or testing 
methods to be used for demonstrating compliance.  
Therefore, the Member States are currently fully responsible for setting compliance rules and appoint 
enforcement authorities. A list of Member States enforcement authorities has been published on the 
DG Environment website.
4 
According to Article 8 of the RoHS Directive, the Member States are required to establish penalties 
for non-compliance. It is left to the Member States to set the amount of such penalties – this is a 
general practice in Community legislation. However,  the Commission is not aware of the existence of 
"divergent inspection fees" or of Member States setting any testing methods. 
However, the Commission is aware that differences exist between Member States as regards methods 
for assessing product compliance and market surveill ance approaches.  With a view to improve 
enforcement, a "RoHS Enforcement Bodies Network" has been set up. Furthermore the Technical 
Adaptation Committee which is the official Committ ee to review some provisions of the RoHS 
Directive is often serving as a platform for exchange of information on best practices on enforcement.  
Finally, in its Proposal for a revised RoHS Directive5 (COM(2008) 809/4), the Commission proposed 
to align the RoHS Directive with  the recently adopted EU legislation on "Marketing of Products"6 
which contains harmonised provis ions on conformity assessment procedures, CE marking and market 
surveillance by the Member States. This would likel y minimise the risk of diverging interpretations 
and ensure coherence with other EU product-related re quirements. Please see Articles 7 to 17 of the 
Commission Proposal. 
Specific questions 
Detailed guidelines on the implementation of the RoHS Directive : In May 2005 the European 
Commission services (DG Environment) publishe d a "Frequently Asked Questions" guidance 
document7 on the RoHS and WEEE8 Directives. This guidance document, which is updated as 
appropriate, is intended to help the authorities in the Member States to interpret both Directives. The 
document could also be used as a reference by econom ic operators, as they ha ve to comply with the 
national laws transposing the Directives. 
List of exemptions : The applications currently exempted from the substance restrictions laid down by 
the RoHS Directive are listed in  the Annex to the Directive.9 All the exemption measures adopted by 
the Commission are science-based.10 
Experiment/testing methods: As mentioned, the Current RoHS Directive does not refer to specific 
testing methods. Article 16 of the Commission Proposal (COM (2008) 809/4) does however make 
                                                      
4 http://ec.europa.eu/environmen t/waste/weee/pdf /weee_faq.pdf . 
5 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/weee/pdf/com_2008_809.pdf   
6 Regulation (EC) N° 765/2008 of the European Pa rliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 setting 
out the requirements for accreditatio n and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products and 
repealing Regulation (EEC) N° 339/93. 
7 http://ec.europa.eu/environmen t/waste/weee/pdf/faq_weee.pdf . 
8 Directive 2002/96/EC. 
9 Please see full text of the Directive at http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:2002L0095:20080524:EN:PDF . Please note that 
Exemption 9a has been annulled by the European Co urt of Justice with effect as of 1 July 2008. 
10 Please see preparatory studies at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/w aste/weee/studies_rohs1_en.htm  .  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 39 
 
 
 reference to harmonised relevant standards. An international standard11 for the determination of 
levels of substances regulated by the RoHS Directiv e in electrotechnical products has already been 
developed. 
With regard to technical assistance, both the EC and its Member States are funding a wide variety of 
TBT-related technical assistance programmes for developing and leas t developed countries, with an 
update on these activities provided  to the TBT Committee every year.   
CHINA II
 
 
Question 1 
Could the EC please provide its assessment on the impact  of the current financial crisis on the EC and 
its major Member States?   
Answer
 
The economic and financial crisis is profoundly affec ting the EU. The financial as well as the non-
financial sectors of the economy are affected.12 EU and euro area GDP are forecast to fall by 1.9% in 
2009 according to the January 2009 interim foreca st, but downside risks to the forecast are 
materializing. For 2010, GDP growth is project ed to remain subdued but stronger than in 2009. 
Unemployment is projected to rise significan tly. Inflation is falling. Forward looking survey 
indicators are at record lows. The up-dated spri ng forecast will be published on May 4. While all 
Member States of the EU are affect ed by the financial crisis, they are affected to different degrees, 
with the large economies being in a deep recession.   
Since the breakout of the crisis, what has the EC done to stabilize its financial framework and 
domestic economy?  Answer
 
The EU has taken bold policy action to stabilize the financial framework and the domestic economy. 
EU governments have adopted an ambitious European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP),13 which 
combines a major fiscal boost aimed at reviving demand with a set of structural measures aimed at 
directing short-term action so as to reinforce Eu rope's adjustment capacity , competitiveness as well 
as render Europe more adapt to long-term challe nges such as climate change. On 4 March the 
Commission reported on implementation of the EERP in a Communication to the Spring European 
Council.14  Moreover, monetary policies in the EU are providing ample support to aggregate demand. 
At the same time, Europe's leaders are aware that  a stable financial sector is a prerequisite for 
building a sustainable recovery. EU Member States agreed on a coordinated European action to 
recapitalise and guarantee banks across the EU. Centra l banks have provided ample liquidity to the 
financial sector. However, besides th ese extraordinary measures, more e ffort is needed to clean-up 
banks' balance sheets. The Commission has publis hed a set of guidelines to help Member States 
design further measures to deal with impaired assets. Looking ahead,  the EU will overhaul its system 
of financial supervision and improve regulation, ensuring that all relevant actors and types of 
financial products are subject to appropriate regulation and oversight. 
 
Question 2 Paragraph 3 on  page 2 of  the Secretariat Report notes that "The Maastricht convergence criteria for 
adopting the euro are: …sustainable fiscal positi on public deficit not exceeding 3% of GDP or close 
                                                     
 
11 IEC 62321:2008. 
12 For an extended analysis of the euro area economy,  see the recent issues of  the Quarterly Report on 
the Euro Area, published on http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/publ_list2508.htm . The January 
interim forecast is also publis hed in the Commission's Website. 
 13 http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/president/pdf/Comm_20081126.pdf.  
14 http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/president/pdf/press_20090304_annx_en.pdf . WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 40  
 
 to that limit, and the ratio of general government  debt to GDP not over 60% or declining at a 
‘sufficient pace’ towards that level." Given that  some EU Member States adopted fiscal stimulus 
plans to fight the current financial crisis, how does the EC make sure that these Member States 
continue to meet such criteria? Does the EC ha ve any plan to loosen its control over these two 
indicators in the future?  
 
Answer
 
The Spring European Council of 19/20 March rea ffirmed its strong commitment to sound public 
finances and to the Stability and Growth Pact fr amework. According to the Council Conclusions, 
Member States should return to their medium-term budgetary objectives as soon as possible, keeping 
pace with economic recovery and in conformity with the Stability and Growth Pact, thereby returning 
to positions consistent w ith sustainable public finances as soon as possible. 
 Question 3 
In the current crisis, we have witnessed the revival of various forms of protectionist measures in areas 
such as trade, investment and employment. Chin a would like to know what measures the EC has 
taken to fight against protectionism.   
Answer
 
The EC is committed to countering protectionist pressures with all possible means, and sees trade as an important part of the overall solution to the economic crisis. First, completing the Doha Round 
will provide an insurance policy against rising protec tionism and further strengthen the world trading 
system, and the EC continues to advocate for a swift conclusion of the negotiations. Secondly, the EC 
attaches great importance to ensuring that crisi s measures across the glob e are introduced in a 
transparent and least trade-restrictive manner. The EC therefore welcomes the monitoring 
mechanism set up by the WTO Director-General, and will continue to actively contribute to the 
exercise. Third, given the crucial role of trade finance in today's global trade, the EC and the EU 
Member States are taking action to address the ex isting shortfall, and to get trade finance flowing 
again. Finally, the EC continues to call for tr ading partners to implement their Aid for Trade 
commitments, which will play a crucial role in as sisting developing countries to better exploit their 
potential for trade.  
Question 4 Many countries have adopted tax reduction measures to stimulate their own economies since last 
September. Has any EU Member State adopted su ch measures? If so, please indicate what measures 
by what Member States, particularly on VAT, excise tax, enterprise income tax, and import/export duty.  
 
Answer
 
Many EU Member States have recently adopted spec ific tax measures in order to counteract the 
effects of the economic crisis. An overview of some of the measures taken in the area of "enterprise 
income tax" is outlined below. The list is m erely intended to give some examples of the above 
mentioned measures and can not be re garded as exhaustive. It should also  be noted that the European 
Commission is not responsible for the accuracy of th e information provided as it concerns matters 
which are the responsibility of the individual Member States. More information can be founded on the 
web sites of the tax administration of the various Members States.  
• AUSTRIA (Economic growth package, adopted on 30 October 2008: increase of limits on 
income tax deductible savings); 
• BULGARIA (2009 State Budget. Measures grouped in  three packages: "Economic Activity" 
– public investment program; "Market Flexib ility" – access to credit for small and medium 
enterprises; "Flexibility of Social Network" – labour market flexibility);  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 41 
 
 
 • FINLAND (2009 Budget Bill: decreased rates of in come tax and new employment income 
deduction); 
• GERMANY (Economic stimulus package, adopted  on 5 November 2008: new declining-
balance depreciation for certain movable fixed assets; increased thresholds for accelerated 
depreciation of movable fixed assets; incenti ve for purchase of environmentally friendly 
cars); 
• ITALY (Law Decree n.185 of 28 November 2008: re duction of the corporate income tax and 
IRAP; tax reduction on wages linked to productivity); 
• LATVIA (Amendments to tax laws, adopted on 14 November 2008: incentive for acquiring 
new machinery; increase of certain depreciation co efficients; allowance for corporate equity; 
rollover relief for assets; extens ion of losses carry-forward); 
• SPAIN (Economic package, adopted by means of Royal Decree n. 1975 of 28 November 
2008: social security rebate up to 1.500 euro p er years (for two years) for employers that 
enter into indefinite contracts with une mployed workers with dependent children); 
• UNITED KINGDOM (Pre-Budget Report of 24 November 2008: deferral of the increase in 
the small companies' rate of corporate tax). 
 Question 5 
Could the EC please elaborate how the crisis will affect its development aid policies? 
 
Answer
 
On April 8, the Commission will put forward a set of concrete proposals to support developing 
countries to cope with the crisis. These will be c onsidered by EU Development Ministers in May, as 
part of a joint EU input into a global, coordinated response. Among these proposals, the EU in collaboration with international institutions and partner countries 
will conduct further joint country impact analyses of th e crisis and needs assessment as a basis for 
coordinated EU country-specific ac tion to support developing countries cope with the crisis.  
It is more important than ever that the world de liver on its promises, particularly in relation to 
Official Development Assistance (ODA) – volume, delivery and effectiveness. The EU continues to 
reaffirm its promises –at Doha and Accra and again at  the G8 in July.  Through our leadership, we 
also help to push others – as at Doha – to keep th eir pledges.  More than that, we deliver – we remain 
the world's largest donor, providing 60% of intern ational official ODA.  Forthcoming DAC figures 
and our annual Monterrey reports will show a sign ificant increase in our ODA, after the drop in 
2007. We also believe that ODA will not be enough to fa ce the impact of the global crisis on the developing 
world – other means and measures need to be t apped and further developed e.g. innovative sources of 
financing, trade, technology transfer, etc. 
Last but not least, the reform of the global economic  and financial architecture will also be needed, to 
deal with the weaknesses which have been expo sed.  The EU is actively putting forward its own 
reform and regulation initiatives and will also play a role in ongoing international discussions on 
making IFIs more inclusive by allowing a grea ter voice and participation for developing countries.  
 
Question 6 Paragraph 36 on Page 49 of the Secretariat Report notes that non-preferential rules are used to apply 
all kinds of commercial policy measures. China woul d like to know whether preferential rules or non-
preferential rules are applied to anti-dumping, countervailing and safeguard measures in FTAs.  
 
Answer
 
Non-preferential rules are normally applied for the purposes of anti-dumping, countervailing and 
safeguard measures.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 42  
 
 Question 7 
Paragraph 37 on Page 49 of the Secr etariat Reports notes "general tolerance rule", "no-drawback rule" 
and "the principle of territoriality". Could the EC please provide further clarification on these three 
terms?  Answer
 
General tolerance rule  means that non-originating materials, which shall not be used in manufacture 
of a particular product may nevertheless be used but  with limitations in order for the final product to 
be originating. The standard general tolerance rule allows using pr ohibited non-originating materials provided their 
total value does not exceed 10% of the ex-works pri ce of the product. Wh ere other percentages are 
foreseen in the relevant list rules, the maximum in the list cannot be exceeded by applying this 10% 
tolerance. For example: if the rule is 'change  of tariff heading' (CTH), materi als classified in the same heading 
as the product by definition may not be used. How ever, materials from the same heading as the 
product may be used if their value does not exceed  10% of the ex-works price of the product. 
 No-drawback rule. "Drawback" refers to the waiver or refund of  duties on imported materials used in 
the manufacture of a product for exportation. The intention of the no-drawback rule in preferential 
trade is to prevent "drawback" on any non-origina ting goods used in the working or processing of an 
originating product. 
All duties to which the non-originating goods are liable must be paid and at no time waived or 
refunded. Otherwise non-originating materials would not be subject to any duties in countries creating the free trade zone.  Principle of territoriality  imposes geographical restrictions for the determination of the origin of a 
given product. It means that the conditions for ac quiring originating status set out in the relevant 
provisions must be fulfilled without interruption in  the contracting parties to a free trade agreement 
or to a preferential arrangement. Basically, work ing or processing must be carried out in the 
particular zone and if goods exported from one party to  a FTA to a third country return, they must be 
considered as non-originating products. They can be  considered as originating if it can be 
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the customs aut horities that the returned goods are the same goods 
as those exported. 
 Question 8 
Paragraph 38 on Page 49 of the Secr etariat Report mentions that the reform of GSP rules of origin 
will introduce a system of statements on origin made  directly by registered exporters. Could the EC 
please indicate the differences between this system  and "approved exporter" in the GSP system? 
 
Answer
 
Approved exporters need to obtain authorisation from the customs adm inistrations on the basis of 
fulfilment of certain conditions and an in-depth examination of the relevant information during the approval procedure, while registere d exporters will be able to make out statements of origin on the 
basis of a simple application to the authorities w hose task at the moment of registration will be 
limited to checking the correctness of filling in of the standard application form by an exporter. The 
EC does not maintain a centralised database of appr oved exporters, though it intends to do so for the 
registered exporters  
Question 9 Paragraph 38 on Page 49 of the Secretariat Report notes that "once agreed and adopted, the new rules 
on substance would be implemented as of 1 January 2010 and the new procedural rules as of 2013." 
Could the EC please explain why the two ru les cannot be implemented simultaneously? 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 43 
 
 
 Answer  
Since introduction of the new procedural rules implies vast changing of the fundamental principles of certification of origin applied so far in all Community arrangements, the Commission finds it 
reasonable to foresee a longer period of time to implem ent this new type of certification, so that 
economic operators in the EC and in the beneficia ry countries, as well customs administrations 
involved could better adapt with the new procedural and control requirements  
 Question 10 
Paragraph 38 on Page 49 of the Secretariat Report not es that "these new rules should progressively be 
extended to other preferential trade arrangements, subject to case-by-case negotiations." Could the EC 
please further clarify how it plans to extend the ne w GSP to other preferential trade arrangements? 
 
Answer
 
The decision on the details of extension of the new GSP rules of origin to other arrangements and the necessary procedures thereof will be taken once the rules are adopted and tested within the GSP 
scheme 
 Question 11 
Paragraph 108 on Page 71 of the Secretariat Report notes that "as of 1 July 2009, the Authorized 
Economic Operator (AEO) program, which entered in to force on 1 January 2008, should allow AEOs 
to benefit from less customs controls." Could th e EC explain how it plans to achieve this? What 
benefit does the EC foresee that the AEOs can get in the new program? 
 
Answer
 
As of 1 July 2009, electronic submission of advan ce cargo declaration will be introduced, which will 
lead to further benefits being realised by AEOs, like for example, reduced data sets for entry and exit 
summary declarations, notice to be inspected as well as a reduced ri sk score in all 27 Member States. 
These benefits were not achievable throughout the 27 Member States before electronic systems that 
are interoperable were set up between Member States.  Up to 1 July 2009, the reduced risk score and 
thus reduced control levels are given individually by  each Member State, in particular there, where 
the AEO is registered, but not on a global level.  
Question 12 Paragraph 198 on Page 93 of the Secretariat Re port notes that "in 2007, 79 million counterfeit and 
pirated articles were seized" Could the EC please indicate how it deals with these counterfeited products, i.e. by which means and how many?   Answer
 
EC Regulation 1383/2003 applies to goods suspected of infringing an intellectual property right. With regards to goods abandoned for destruction under Ar ticle 11, they are destroyed. With regard to all 
other goods, they are destroyed in a ccordance with national law of the Member States on the basis of 
Article 17. The Commission has no figures on the am ount of goods destroyed under Article 11 or 
under Article 17. 
 
Question 13 
Paragraphs 129 to 130 on Page 75 of the Secretaria t Report note that the EC maintains various forms 
of market interventions for agricultural products and provides aid for the promotion of agricultural 
products and food in the internal market and in th ird countries. China would like to know if the EC 
would include these measures in its latest domestic support notification. If so, when is the notification 
due? If not, could the EC please share with us some more knowledge on these measures?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 44  
 
 Answer
 
The measures referred to are included the EC's  Domestic Support notificatio ns G/AG/N/EEC/58 and 
G/AG/N/EEC/59. These notifications were publis hed by the WTO secretariat on 2 March 2009.  
 Question 14 
Paragraph 2 on Page 96/ Paragra ph 14 on Page 101/ Paragraphs 43-44 on Page 109 of the Secretariat 
Report. According to the Secretariat Report, export subsidy for sugar and dair y products account for 
1/3 of the total export subsidy budget in 2006-20 07. Moreover, in January  2009, export subsidies 
were reintroduced for SMP, WMP, butter and chees e, which were terminated in Feb. 2007, while 
compulsory private storage for butte r continued to exist. Therefore, it would be appreciated if the EC 
could clarify the following issues: 
 Could the EC please share with us its preliminary ides on the timetable for phasing out export subsidy for sugar and dairy product?  
Before the resumption of the already terminated export subsidies for SMP, WMP, butter and cheese, 
did the EC conduct any studies on the effect of this measure on Negotiation on Agriculture of DDA? If so, could the EC please share with Members the results of these studies?  Could the EC provide the rationale for maintaining compulsory private storage for butter?   
Could the EC provide any cost-benefit studies of this measure?  
 
Answer
 
a) Export subsidies in the sugar sector have b een suspended since 1 October 2008. For dairy the 
export refunds were re-activated on 23 January 2009 due  to the market situation. No end date is pre-
determined. The EU has offered to eliminate re funds by 2013 provided other partners in the WTO 
make similar efforts for their export policies.  b) Before the re-activation of dairy export refunds , which were not terminated but fixed at zero 
due to a favourable world market situation for dai ry products, there was no measurable effect on the 
negotiation on agriculture within the DDA. There was no agreement when refunds were at zero and 
there is still no agreement now that refunds have been re-activated. 
If the question is meant as to what the effect on ma rkets was than: world market prices first went up 
and then down when refunds were fixed at zer o and prices remained stable and even increased 
somewhat for powders after refunds were re-activat ed. Contrary to what some WTO members feared. 
This shows the balanced and prudent way in which th e EU re-activated the export refunds for dairy 
products. 
 c) The private storage scheme enables to relieve the market by temporary storage of butter that 
remains in the ownership of the operator and for which an aid fo r storage and financing costs is 
granted. Furthermore, the scheme helps spreading th e seasonal peak in supply and thus stabilises the 
market. It is an alternative to public intervention in which the ownership of the product is transferred 
to the EU. Since intervention buying-in of butter is  compulsory only up to certain quantities, it makes 
sense that private storage has been maintained  as a compulsory instrument to deal with 
supplementary surplus butter in the seasonal peak . The costs of public storage and private storage ar e comparable (storage and financing). Contrary to 
private storage, public storage intake and release does not necessarily follow the seasonal pattern. 
Preference for one or the other measure is poli cy driven and dependent on the market situation and 
market prospects.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 45 
 
 
 Question 15 
Paragraph 11 on Page 99/ Paragra ph 36 on Page 107 of the Secretaria t Report. The Secretariat Report 
notes that Single Commodity Transfers was as hi gh as 40-50% of the respective producer revenues for 
sugar and meat while for maize, sugar, and m eat, price support makes up most of the SCTs. 
Moreover, the sugar sector continues to be highly sup ported.  Sugar prices in the EC have been about 
three times higher than the world market price. Ch ina would like to know if the EC has any plan to 
substantially reduce these supports on sugar, meat and maize.   
Answer
 
Meat : As a result of the 2003 CAP reform, the large majority of direct payments are decoupled. The 
process of decoupling has been further advanced as  a result of the 2008 Health Check of the CAP . 
Sugar: In 2006 the EC introduced a reform in the s ugar sector, with a 4-year transition period. The 
reform includes a drastic price reduction (-36%). In January 2009 the EU market price has already 
been reduced by nearly one third of the targeted reduction. The price reduction results from the relaxation of price support mechanisms, in particular the end of 
public intervention and export refunds. Further price re duction will be driven by preferential imports 
from less developed countries and from African Caribbean and Pacific countries which will enjoy 
duty free quota free access to the EC as from October 2009. Maize: 
Concerning maize, the limit for buying into in tervention has been fixed at 0 from marketing 
year 2009/10 onwards.  
Question 16 Paragraph 39 on Page 108 of the Se cretariat Report notes that the markets for livestock, including 
beef and veal, sheep meat, and poultry meat, remain  amongst the most heavily protected subsectors in 
agriculture and that payments linked to production conti nue to play an important role in direct aids for 
suckler cows, ewes, and goats, as well as th e slaughter premium for bovine animals. 
 
Could the EC please provide the amount of support provided to suckler cows, ewes, and goats, as well 
as the slaughter premium for bovine animals? Does the EC have any studies on the impact of each support measure on trade? If so, could the EC 
share the studies with us?  
Does the EC have any plan to phase out these support measures?  
 
Answer
 
(a) The information for the marketing year 2005/2006 is available in notifica tion G/AG/N/EEC/59 of 
2 March 2009. More recent information will be made available in due course, as it will be included in 
notifications that are currently under preparation. 
 (b) Coupled direct payments, which already by now represent a very small share of total direct payments and are completely abolished in most of EU Member States, are destined to further decline 
after the recent agreement on the so-called Health Check: indeed, we estimate that after the reform 
more than 90% of the direct payments will be dec oupled. The residual measures,  such as the suckler 
cow premium and the sheep-meat support, remained  coupled only in some Member States not for 
questions related to production but rather for th e maintenance of landscape, especially where land 
abandonment was an imminent danger. In any event, the low level of residual coupled payments is 
perfectly compliant with the current provisions of the WTO, as well as also with the latest draft 
modalities of the DDA.  
In terms of external studies, final reports of agricultural evaluation studies commissioned by the 
European Commission to external contractors are published on this website: http://ec.europa.eu/agric ulture/eval/index_en.htm 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 46  
 
 (c) 
- Pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009, the payments related to the special premium and the slaughter premium for bovine animals shall be integrated into the single payment scheme from 2012 at the latest.  - The payments for the suckler cows shall be in tegrated into the single payment scheme from 
2010 where Member States decide not to continue granting them as coupled payments. Where 
Member States decide to grant them as coupled payments, they may decide to set the part of the component of their national ceiling to be used for these payments at a lower level than that decided in the previous period.  - The sheep and goat payments shall be integr ated into the single payment scheme from 2010 
where Member States decide not to continue granting them as coupled payments. Where 
Member States decide to continue granting them as coupled payments, they may decide to set 
the part of the component of their national ceiling to be used for these payments at a lower level 
than that decided in the previous period. 
 
Question 17 Please provide the volume of production and amount of subsidy on agricultura l products covered by 
the production-limiting programs in 2007 and 2008 . Please also provide a list covering each export 
subsidy receiving agricultural produc t and its amount in  2007 and 2008.$ 
 
Answer
 
The expenditure for production-limiting programs will be contained in the EC's Domestic Support 
notifications 2006/07 and 2007/08. The preparation of these notifications has not yet been finalised.  
For the production information please refer to Eurostat:  http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu  Question 18 
Could the EC please share with us the current rules for cross-border investment or M&A of 
enterprises and financial institutions? Among these ru les, are there any particular provisions which 
cover the cross-border investment or M&A in certain areas such as energy and high-tech? In addition, 
it is reported that competent authorities grant differe ntial treatment for forei gn state-owned enterprise 
and private enterprise. If true, could the EC provide  an explanation for such differential treatment?  
 Answer
 
Directive 2007/44/EC deals with acquisitions in the fi nancial sector (banking, insurance, investment). 
The directive explicitly prohibits discrimination:  § 5. Notwithstanding Article 19(2), (3) and (4), where two or more proposals to acquire or increase 
qualifying holdings in the same credit institution have been notified to the co mpetent authority, the 
latter shall treat the proposed acquirers in a non-discriminatory manner. 
 Question 19 
If any, could the EC explain in full details of its taxation system for ships and watercrafts, e.g. tax 
items, tax objects, tax rate, competent au thority and concerning laws or rules? 
 Answer
 
Supplies of boats are in principle subject to VAT a ccording to the normal rules. It should be noted 
however that, pursuant to Article 148 of Directiv e 2006/112, special rules apply in relation to 
international transport. It is indeed so that suppli es of sea vessels used for navigation on the high seas 
are to be exempted. 
Moreover, there is no harmonised EU system concerning possible exemption from excise duty on 
alcoholic beverages and manufactured tobacco supplie d to ships for consumption on board by the 
crew members. Article 23(5) of Directive 92/ 12/EEC provides that Member States' national 
provisions apply.  As for energy products, Directive 2003/96/EC requires that all Member States shall exempt from  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 47 
 
 
 excise duty energy products supplied for the use as  fuel for the purposes of navigation within 
Community waters (including fishing), other than private pleasure craft, and electricity produced on 
board a craft (Article 14(1)(c)).  Furthermore Me mber States may apply total or partial exemptions 
or reductions in the level of taxation on energy products supplied for use as fuel for navigation on 
inland waterways (including fishing) other than in private pleasure craft, and electricity produced on 
board a craft. (Article 15(1)(f)). 
 Question 20 
On government procurement, China would like to know if the EC could share the following 
information: 
 
the value of contracts of goods, projects or servi ces covered by GPA in each EU Member State as 
well as the origin of the winning bidders of these contracts in 2007 and 2008.  market share of Chinese enterprises in govern ment procurement in EU Member States. 
 
What are the differences in requirements for foreign enterprises from non-GPA parties and GPA 
parties to take part in govern ment procurement in the EU?  
 Could the EC indicate, among energy (natural gas, heating, electricity, oil prospecting and exploration, coal and other solid fuel), dri nking water, postal service, telecommunication, 
transportation (railroad, railroad car, trolley bus, bus  and cable telex), airport and relating services, 
port and relating services, which are conducted solely by domestic enterprises, and which are conducted with participatio n of foreign capital?  
 
Answer
 
a) The EC is not in a position at this stage  to provide such information. The European 
Commission is currently collecting and checking th e data from the 27 Member States for the year 
2007. On this basis, the statistical report for this  period will be finalized and circulated to the GPA 
Committee. As an observer, China will have access to  this document and will find all relevant 
information in it.  
b) As mentioned in the Secretariat's report, the EC is not in a position to provide such 
information at this stage. Identifying the actual nationality of a firm is extremely difficult as the 
structure of its capital is not always known an d the potential nationality of the bidder does not 
necessarily reflect the trade flow resulting from the contract award. The EC is currently considering 
how to implement the principles laid down in  Regulation (EC) No 716/2007 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on Co mmunity statistics on the structure and activity 
of foreign affiliates  [Official Journal L 171 of 29.06.2007] and the Recommendations Manual on the 
Production of Foreign Affiliates Statistics in the a rea of public procurement (please refer to the 
following website http://epp.eurostat.ec.eur opa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/ KS-RA-07-002/EN/KS-RA-
07-002-EN.PDF).  
c) Suppliers from third countries have the right to participate and they are granted national 
treatment in EU tendering procedures if an interna tional agreement concluded by the EU in the field 
of public procurement grants them the right to do so  (GPA or bilateral agreements with the EU). In 
case there is no such an agreement or the agreement does not apply to  the procurement in question, 
suppliers from third countries do not benefit from any legal certainty in the EU as they have no legal 
right to participate. 
 d) If the procurement in question is part of th e EC's commitments under the GPA, it is open to 
all GPA suppliers, which are then on an equal footing with the EC economic operators. As to the EC's WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 48  
 
 commitments in the domain of utilities, they include drinking water, electricity, ports, airports and 
urban transport.  Question 21 
As indicated in Paragraphs 73- 77 on Page 58-60 of the Secretariat Report, the REACH regulation 
entered into force on 1 January 2007. "Some of the main trade concerns raised in the TBT Committee 
include:  burdensome procedures, notably for SMEs  and developing countries, to ensure compliance 
with the new regime, and insufficient technical assistance provided by the EC; high registration fees;  procedures that might put non-EC manufacturers at a disadvantage vis-à-vis EC manufacturers; and the potential for non-uniform enforcement of th e regulation among EC Member States." As the 
REACH regulation has been raised as a specific tr ade concern in the TBT Committee for 19 times by 
as many as 30 Members, what are the steps that th e EC is going to take to address the concerns?  
 
Answer
 
As noted in Paragraph 75 on page 60 of the Se cretariat Report, the EC has already noted that 
"REACH applies equally to locally manufactured a nd imported products, and throughout the EC.  
Efforts have been made to inform worldwide operators about the processes and obligations under 
REACH, and reductions of up to  90% are foreseen for fees payable by SMEs."  As stressed on 
numerous occasions at the meetings of the TBT Committee, REACH does not apply outside the EU; it 
applies to substances that are manufactured or impo rted in the territory of the EU and there is no 
discrimination regarding the origin of the substances. 
 
Regarding the potential for non-uniform enforcement of REACH, it has also been explained in the 
TBT Committee that REACH is a Regulation and con sequently it applies directly throughout the EU, 
without the need for its transposition into national measures.  The enforcement of REACH falls indeed 
under the responsibility of the EU Member States, but  mechanisms to ensure uniform interpretation 
and application of Community legisl ation are foreseen under Community law.  The fact that different 
enforcement procedures and different penalties may exist in the different Member States does not 
affect the principle of uniform application, nor do es it lead to restrictions of trade, as Member States 
are required to ensure that such penalties and enforcement methods are effective.   
 As regards the complaints about insufficient tec hnical assistance provided by the EC, it should be 
noted that the EC has made considerable effort s (guidance documents, tools, seminars, assistance 
from help desks) to help companies, including those from third countries, to better understand 
REACH.  It has also provided (and continu es to provide) technical assistance on REACH to 
developing countries.     
Question 22 The EC prohibits export of hi-tech products to certain countries. 
a) Has the EC conducted any study on to what extent  its export restrictions influence the current trade 
with other Members? If yes, will the EC shar e the outcome of these studies with Members? 
b) Does the EC intend to review its current expor t restriction policy to help push forward Sino-EC 
trade relations?  Answer
 
The EC does not prohibit export of high tech pro ducts to certain countries. The EC may only adopt 
sanctions to some countries on the basis of UN Resolutions or other international frameworks. 
a) Restrictions on exports, under sanctions Re gulations are legally clear. Regarding export 
controls in line with UNSCR 1540, these controls are not prohibitions but are licensing systems prior 
to export. They very seldom  lead to specific refusal s of exports , not necessarily high tech, in order to 
combat proliferation of weapons of mass destructi on programmes or programm es  in order to meet 
EU MS commitments in international treaties and a rrangements to which in most cases China itself is 
a member and therefore well aware of.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 49 
 
 
 b As said, implementation either of bans of arms exports or other controls  prior to exports (and 
which are not prohibitions but licensing schemes)  are managed by the MS in conformity with 
international treaties and resolutions. China has h ad many opportunities to ra ise the issue with the 
Community as it is put on the agenda of the bilat eral meetings almost once a year. in all these 
discussions, it has been made very clear that there are no prohibitions of high tech trade to China. On 
the contrary, China is participant to a number of high tech cooperation programmes with the EU. 
 Question 23 
On Energy-using Products (EuP). As required by  Directive 2005/32/EC establishing a framework for 
the setting of eco-design requirements for energy-usi ng products (EuP), the EU Member States shall, 
no later than 11 August 2007, adopt and publish th e laws, regulations and administrative provisions 
necessary to comply with the Directive. 
 
a) In the process of designing EuP produc ts, while factors such as functions, 
performance, materials, appearance, general utiliza tion, safety, packaging, costs, standards and 
certification are likely to be considered, impact  on energy, environment and natural resources 
for the entire life cycle of such products will al so have to be assessed. Only those EuP products 
complying with the eco-design requirements in the EuP Directive and labeled with a CE 
marking shall be allowed to be put on the EU market.  
 
b) the EuP Directive is a regulatory framework  and covers a wide range of products, 
applying in principle to all energy-using produc ts other than means of transport for persons or 
goods. 
 
China believes that the EuP Directive has a wide-r anging impact on developing countries’ exports to 
the EU market. There are enormous  difficulties in terms of both technology and capital for enterprises 
in developing countries to undertake environmenta l impact assessment for EuP products from the 
early stage of product design phase up to the end of life of the products.  
 
Answer
 
None of the Eco-design implementing measures adopted so far requires companies to carry an 
assessment as described above. 
 
Could the EC please explain how it plans to ma ke improvements in the following aspects:  
 
a) to take into account, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 12.7 and 12.8 of 
WTO/TBT, special needs that are essential to developing members, including institutional and 
infrastructural difficulties in the field of prepar ation and application of technical regulations, 
standards and conformity assessment procedures; 
 
Answer  
This aspect does not need to be improved as it is already addressed in the processes of setting 
Ecodesign requirements under directive 2005/32/EC. It  is addressed through the following elements:  
 
 Requirements are based on a technical, en vironmental and economic analysis which is 
carried out in full transparency with the par ticipation of stakeholders from around the 
world. The study usually lasts around 2 years and interim results are regularly put on line. All stakeholders are invited throug hout the process to provide their input. 
 The timing of requirements is also based on a comprehensive impact assessment, 
which takes into account economical, envir onmental and social impacts, including 
design/re-design cycles of affected products. This analysis looks also into the impact on imported products. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 50  
 
  The staged introduction of requirements with  often several transition periods allows 
manufacturers to adapt their products. The re quirements are cost-effective and don't 
put an excessive burden on manufacturers. 
 The Commission services regularly discuss the ongoing work with international 
partners, including China. 
 As afar as possible requirements are aligned with international requirements (for e.g. 
the draft Eco-design Regulation on External  power supplies applies in stage two the 
same requirements as those in the US/China Energy Star programme which is effective 
since end of 2008). 
The Eco-design implementing measures will be nefit importers of energy-using equipment by 
providing clear and common rules across 27 EU Member States. 
 
b) to provide technical assistance to developing members to ensure that the preparation 
and application of the EuP Directive regarding technical regulations, standards and conformity 
assessment procedures do not create unnecessary barriers to trade.  
 
Answer
 
As indicated above the process of setting of Eco-d esign requirements and the criteria for doing so are  
designed in such a way as to allow maximum tr ansparency, accuracy and cost -effectiveness. Chinese 
manufacturers are invited to get involved in this process. Although the EC is not in a position to 
provide an extensive technical assistance to  Chinese manufacturers, several workshops were 
organized by the EC to this end.  
c) to clarify the 5 implementing rules of the EuP Directive which leave much room for 
arbitrariness of the competent authorities and create technical uncertainties for both producers and exporters.  
 
Answer
 
Implementing measures under the Directive 2005/ 32/EC limit room for arbitrary decisions by 
establishing clear provisions and specifying conformity  assessment procedures, as already explained 
in relation to the specific measures.  
Question 24 On safety of lighters. On 23 April 2008, the European Commission promulgated Commission Decision on Specific Child Safety Requirements to  be Met by European Standards for Lighters 
pursuant to Directive 2001/95/EC of the European Pa rliament and of the Council. The document gives 
definition to lighter, child-resistant lighter and child -appealing lighter. However, the definition itself is 
vague and leaves room for arbitrariness. Could the EC please indicate whether they have related 
testing method, testing parameters and testing bodies? If so, would the EC please inform where such information could be obtained?  
 
Answer
 
The European Communities would like to refer to its  response on 25 June 2008 to earlier, similar 
comments received by China (ref: G/TBT/N/EEC/ 178 Draft Commission Decision on specific child 
safety requirements to be met by European standards for lighters pursuant to Directive 2001/95/EC of 
the European Parliament and of the Coun cil. EC reply to comments from China). 
 As indicated in that reply, the Decision in subject  constitutes the prerequisite for a mandate set by the 
European Commission for the European standardisa tion bodies with the purpose of obtaining a 
revised version of the European standard EN 13869:2002. As such, it is a sui generis Decision which 
does not have a direct effect on the Member States of  the European Union or on economic operators. 
The mandate (M/427) was accepted by CEN at a technical board meeting on 25 March 2009 and 
CEN will now start working on the revision of the standard, covering inter alia definitions and where  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 51 
 
 
 appropriate testing methods. For further informati on about this standardisation work, please contact 
CEN directly.  Question 25 
On Safety of magnetic toys. On 21 April 2008,  the European Commission promulgated Commission 
Decision Requiring member States to Ensure that Magnetic Toys Placed or Made Available on the 
Market Display a Warning about the Health and Sa fety Risks They Pose which is valid only for one 
year.  However, it is observed that in the last few years,  the EC constantly applied "interim" measures to 
"temporarily" increase technical standards, whereas validity of many measures were not "interim", but 
prolonged. This practice would confuse non-EU ma nufacturers as not having clear idea of what EC 
requirement to follow.  Could the EC please elabor ate how it intends to ensure transparency and 
predictability of its technical regulations? 
 
Answer
 
On 21 April 2008, the Commission adopted Decision 2008/329/EC requiring Member States to ensure 
that as of 21 July 2008 magnetic toys placed or made available on the market display a warning. As 
indicated in the Decision, this is a temporary measure pending the development of a European 
harmonised standard covering in a comprehensive manner the safety of magnetic toys. The Decision 
is applicable only until 21 April 2009. The Commission does not intend to extend the period of 
validity of the Decision since voluntary standard EN 71-1 A8, which comprehensively covers the 
safety of magnetic toys, is likely to be publis hed on 21 April 2009 by the European Committee for 
Standardization (CEN). As soon as the references to  the new harmonised standard will be published 
in the Official Journal of the EU, products comp lying with that standard will benefit from a 
presumption of conformity with the essential heal th and safety requirements of the Toy Safety 
Directive 88/378/EEC. 
 Question 26 
On Regulation on organic production and indicati on of agricultural products and foodstuffs. On 
1 January 2007, the EC brought into force Council Regulation (EC) No 1997/2006 amending 
Regulation (EEC) No 2092/91 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring 
thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs. The Regulation revised the scope of products 
applicable and the requirements for their labelling and certification.  
Could the EC please indicate whether it intends to publish the list of inspection bodies in third 
countries recognized by the EC to issue such certifi cation and specify the standards that a particular 
inspection body adopts – the EC standards, the CAC standards, or any other standards? If so, could 
the EC please inform where such information could be obtained? 
 
Answer
 
Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/ 91 and its subsequent amendments are not anymore in force as 
they were, as from 1.1.2009, repealed by Council Re gulation (EC) No 834/2007 and its implementing 
rules, i.e. Commission Regulations (EC) No. 889/2008 and No. 1235/2008. 
 Detailed rules for imports of organic products into  the EC are laid down in Regulation 1235/2008. 
There is also a guideline document on imports of organi c products into the EC with further details. 
Apart from the already existing list of equivalent countries, the EC intends to establish two lists of 
control bodies - one for equivalence and one for compliance. The deadline for the first round of 
applications of control bodies to be included in the equivalence list has been set for 31/10/2009. It is 
true that the control body has to, amongst other things, specify in the application to which organic 
standard it certifies. The list of control bodies for co mpliance will be established later on and there, 
the only possibility will be to certify to the EC organic standard (full compliance).  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 52  
 
 Question 27 
On Good manufacturing practice for materials and artic les intended to come into contact with food. 
On 22 December 2006, the EC released Commis sion Regulation (EC) No 2023/2006 on good 
manufacturing practice for material s and articles intended to come into contact with food. The 
Regulation requires producers of materials and articl es intended to be brought into contact with food 
to establish and implement rules on good manufacturing practice (GMP).  
China appreciates the legislative objective of the EC to protect human health and consumer interest. 
However, there are no international standards on GMP for materials and articles intended to come into 
contact with food. The CAC has set down only one GMP code, namely, the Code of Practice for the 
Prevention and Reduction of Lead Contamination in Foods (CAC/RCP 56-2004), which only involves 
lead contamination and makes no mention of the establishment of GMP for materials and articles 
intended to come into contact with food. Accord ing to Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Technical 
Barriers to Trade (WTO/TBT), "Members shall ensu re that technical regulations are not prepared, 
adopted or applied with a view to or with the e ffect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international 
trade", when attempting to establish a regulation to  protect human health and safety, the EC should 
consider whether it would pose unnecessary obstacles to  international trade and provide adequate 
evidence to demonstrate the necessity of such a regulation.  
 
China hopes the EC to: 
a) take into full account the technical level of developing countries 
b)  provide a sufficient long transitional period 
c) grant differential and preferential treatments to developing countries 。 
 
Answer
 
The Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2023/2006 lays down general rules for the application of good 
manufacturing practice which have to be applied taking into account the size of the business run by 
the operator, so as not to be an excessive burde n on the business. This applies also to Third 
Countries. To help developing countries it would be advisable if the Chinese industry associations 
would liaise with the European industry associa tions which already have developed guidelines for 
different sectors.  
 
Question 28 
On Directive on restricting the sale of certain measuring devices containing mercury. On 25 September 2007, the EU published Council Directiv e 2007/51/EC of the European Parliament and 
of the Council amending Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing of 
certain measuring devices containing mercury. The Directive bans the sale of certain mercury-
containing measuring devices such as thermometers, barometers and sphygmomanometers. Currently, 
around two thirds of the measuring equipments on the EC market intended for sale to the general 
public comes from China, India and Japan.    
China is concerned with the adverse effect that the Directive may have on Chinese exports and would 
like to ask the EC to provide the rationale behind such restriction.    Answer
 
The Commission communication of 28 January 2005 on the Community strategy concerning mercury, 
(available at: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUri Serv.do?uri=COM:2005:0020:FI N:EN:PDF which by 
considering all uses of mercury, it concluded that it would be appropriate to introduce Community-
level marketing restrictions on certain non-electri cal or non-electronic measuring and control 
equipment containing mercury, The rational behind such proposal associates to th e benefits for the environment and, in the long 
term, for human health, through preventing mercury fr om entering the waste stream, if restrictions on 
the marketing of measuring devices containing mercury were introduced.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 53 
 
 
 The European Commission made an extensive investi gation concerning the associated risks  to the 
use of mercury-based measuring devices (risk assessment report available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/chemicals/docs/studi es/rpa-mercury.pdf) and  taking into account 
technical and economic feasibility  of alternatives by carrying out an Impact Assessment analysis.  
The outcome of this investigation indicated that  immediate restrictive measures should cover those 
measuring devices that are intended for sale to the general public and, in particular, all fever 
thermometers. Those required restrictive measur es on the marketing of these mercury containing 
measuring devices were therefore imposed by the Directive 2007/51/EC.   It should be noted that from these restrictions are currently exempted:  
(a) the import of measuring devices containing mercury that  are more than 50 years old; this 
concerns either antiques or  cultural goods as defined in Council Regulation (EEC) No  3911/92 
considering that such trade is limited in exten t and seems to pose no risk to human health or the 
environment.  
(b) mercury-containing devices for healthcare (in particular, sphygmomanometers for measuring 
blood pressure and strain gauges) on the basis of their essential use in the treatment of specific 
medical cases  and other mercury- based devices  that are exclus ively used for professional and 
industrial uses , (e.g as porocimeters, pycnometers, hygrometers,  etc.).  
 With the aim of minimizing the release of mercury into the environment and in order to evaluate the 
feasibility of phasing-out of the remaining measur ing medical devices containing mercury without 
adversely influencing patients' health and safety, pl ease note that the Commission is in the process of  
reviewing  the availability of reliable safer alterna tives that are technically and economically feasible 
for mercury containing sphygmomano meters and other measuring devices in healthcare. A similar 
approach is adopted for mercury-containing measur ing devices in other professional and industrial 
uses (as required by Directive 2007/51/EC).  
 In this context, it is worth noting that the recent session of the UNEP Governing Council (Nairobi, 16-20 February 2009) decided to open negotiations on an international legally binding instrument on 
mercury. Measures taken at Community level are th erefore likely to be embedded into a world-wide 
regulatory context in future. 
 
Question 29 
On Directive banning the sale and use of  perfluorooctane sulfonate. According to 
Directive 2006/122/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, the EC puts perfluorooctane 
sulfonate (PFOS) in the list of dangerous substa nces. Unless otherwise authorized, PFOS may not be 
placed on the EC market or used as a substance in semi-finished articles; the concentration of PFOS 
may not exceed 0.1% by mass in semi-finished articl es and 0.005% by mass in finished articles; for 
textiles or other coated materials, the amount of PFOS may not exceed 1 μg/㎡of the coated material 
as an important active agent used to provide water,  oil and grease resistance to textiles and leather, 
PFOS has been used extensively for many civil and industrial purposes. As China has not been able to 
find a safer substitute for PFOS that would fully comply  with the EC requirements, it has been used in 
China as surface coatings for many key products in tended for export such as textiles, leather and 
carpets. China is concerned about the possible nega tive impact of the Directive on Chinese exports of 
electrical, light industrial, textile, and chemical products. 
Therefore, China hopes that the EU to, in accordan ce with the relevant provisions of "technical 
assistance to other members" and "special and diffe rential treatment of developing country members" 
contained in the Agreement on Technical Barriers to  Trade (WTO/TBT), provide technical assistance 
to developing countries in order that the app lication of Directive 2006/122/EC does not affect 
negatively exports of developing countries to the EC.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 54  
 
 Answer
 
Directive 2006/122/EC, restricts the placing on the market and use of PFOS, its salts and other derivatives including polymers. The restrictions aim to reduce risks to the environment due to the 
exposure to PFOS compounds released from prepar ations and articles which were identified in a 
study conducted by the UK departm ent for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment 
Agency for England and Wales in 2004.  In this study, a survey at EU leve l has demonstrated that PFOS is no longer used in textile, carpets 
and leather, and that companies have already moved to alternatives. Only a few of the uses evaluated, 
seems to be difficult to replace PFOS by alt ernatives and therefore the European Commission has 
exempted these particular uses und er the Directive 2006/122/EC. 
 Also an evaluation at OECD level on the hazard properties of PFOS com pounds has demonstrated 
that due to their PBT properties, such subst ances cause concern to the environment and human 
health. 
 
Recently PFOS has been nominated as a POP, cand idate to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent 
Organic Pollutants, (POPs) and the proposal is in line with the EU restrictions already adopted. 
Broadly similar restrictions are also  in place in North America.  
 
In order to monitor compliance of preparations, semi-finished products and articles with the limit 
values set up under the Directive 2006/122/EC, the European Commission has issued a mandate to the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) to develop harmonised and validated methods of 
analysis that can be used by authorities and industry.   
Reference methods will be fixed for determining th e content of PFOS in preparations, semi-finished 
products and articles, including textile and coated materials. The establishment of standardised 
reference methods is of utmost importance to guarantee a uniform application and control of Community legislation in all Member States. The European Commission can assist with further 
clarifications in order to facilitate the complian ce with the obligations set up under the Directive 
2006/122/EC. 
 
Question 30 
On Rules on the hygiene of foodstuffs. On Jan 2006, the EC introduced 3 legislations on the hygiene 
of foodstuffs and a regulation on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance 
with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules. These legislations, with complicated 
and stringent standards, have st rengthened food safety control measures and raised the threshold of 
market access for food products, which, in a sen se, constitutes a de facto barrier to trade in 
agricultural and farming products, particularly produc ts having much to do with animal feed, animal 
health conditions and plant health. The new pack age of food regulations sets out detailed hygiene 
criteria for the entire food production process, requi ring their compliance from primary production to 
sale or supply to the final consumers, particularly in  the case of products of animal origin. The official 
controls throughout the food chain have added co sts of rearing, transport and labor to business 
operators, thus forcing some small and medium-size enterprises in developing countries to pull out of 
the EC market. China hopes that the EU will, in  accordance with the SPS Agreement,  allow the new rules to be 
gradually phased in, grant a longer period for the rele vant exporters of developing countries to comply 
with the regulations.  
Answer
 
The clear objective of the hygiene package was to  simplify the legislation on food hygiene, make it 
more coherent by separating the different discipl ines (public health, animal health and official 
controls) and concentrate on objectives rath er than maintaining very detailed requirements.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 55 
 
 
 As an example, with the adoption of the hygiene pack age in 2004, a total of 152 legislative Acts have 
been repealed: 
- 17 at the entry into application of the new rules in 2006;  - 133 further pieces of legislation ha ve been repealed since then; and 
- 2 previous acts were also repealed by Commission Decision 2006/766/EC. 
Please find enclosed links to the Commission's guida nce documents on Regulations (EC) No 852/2004 
and (EC) No 853/2004: http://ec.europa.eu/food/internationa l/trade/interpretation_imports.pdf  
and to the guidance on HACCP:  http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/foodla w/guidance/guidance_rev_7_en.pdf  
 
Question 31 
On Proposal to put goji berries on novel foods list. On 8 February 2007, Britain’s Food Standards 
Agency (FSA) notified China’s stakeholders that if  no historical evidence of significant consumption 
of goji berries (red medlar berries or Lycium barbar um) in the EC prior to May 1997 is provided, FSA 
will place goji berries on novel foods list for it s management, according to Regulation (EC) 
No. 258/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 concerning novel foods 
and novel food ingredients. Currently, all the othe r 26 EC Member States, except UK, have indicated 
that goji berries were not being consumed to a subs tantial degree in their r espective territories before 
May 1997. In the event that the berries are put on novel foods list, they shall not be legally marketed in the EC without going through a complicated pr ocess of safety assessment and authorization. 
According to Regulation (EC) No. 258/97, foods and food ingredients which have not been used for 
human consumption to a significant degree in the EC  before entry into force of the Regulation in 
May 1997 shall be deemed novel f oods and novel food ingredients a nd shall fall under the Regulation. 
Novel foods are allowed to be placed on the EU market only after the completion of a hazard assessment and authorization. The specific procedur es include: First, a request for marketing the novel 
food in the EC should be submitted to the competen t authorities in any of the 27 EC Member States. 
Secondly, upon receipt of the request, the compet ent authorities of the EU Member State shall 
undertake safety assessment of the product and its production process and issue an initial assessment 
report within 90 days. According to Regulation (EC)  No. 258/97, three conditions must be satisfied 
for the assessment: 1) The novel food should pose no danger to the consumers; 2) It should not 
mislead the consumers; 3) It should not be nut ritionally disadvantageous for the consumers in 
comparison with foods which it is intended to repl ace. Thirdly, the initial assessment report shall be 
forwarded to all the EC Member States and within a period of 60 days from the date of circulation of 
the report, any Member State may present an objection to the marketing of the novel food in the EU. If any other Member State holds a different opinion  of the favorable report issued by the Member 
State to which the request is submitted, the appli cant shall provide further information to clear the 
doubt. If the Member States ar e still divided in the matter, the Eu ropean Food Safety Bureau shall 
deliver an opinion regarding the request of the app licant. According to Regulation (EC) No. 258/97, a 
simplified procedure applies to the novel food whic h is similar to an established food in the EU 
market in its composition, nutritional value, functi on of metabolism, use and contents of undesirable 
substances. The applicant may submit to the Euro pean Commission its request for the simplified 
procedure after the above-mentioned similarity  is confirmed by any EU Member State. 
As mentioned in the Secretariat Report (Paragraph 92), the EC is revising its novel food legislation, 
which aroused concerns of many developing country Members. China shares concerns raised at the 
SPS Committee and the TBT Committee, and has grave concern over the EU’s proposed move to put 
goji berries and other traditional agricultural specialties from China on novel foods list. China hopes that the EU will base its decision on sound evid ence and not turn nove l foods and novel food 
ingredients regulation into a de facto trade barrier. 
 
Answer
 
The EC are working on the proposal for Novel F oods with the European Parliament. The EC 
legislation was developed to create uniform ma rketing conditions avoiding differences between WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 56  
 
 national laws that could hinder the free movement of foodstuffs. The Article 3 of this regulation 
provides that foods and food ingredients falling with in its scope must not present a danger or mislead 
the consumer. They also must be clearly defined so  clear directions to consumers can be given if these 
are requested. It will not create any barrier to  trade and any discrimination for Third Countries 
importers. 
 
Question 32  
It is reported that a new rule on wood packaging ma terials entered into force on 1 January 2009. The 
new rule is more stringent than IPSM-15 rules of the IPPC. It requires, ot her than quarantined and 
properly labeled, imported wood p ackaging material shall be made of bark-free wood, with a few 
exception of wood with bark, with bark width < 3cm or bark acreage < 50 cm² if bark width > 3cm. 
China would like to know the rationale behind such stringent requirement. Why can’t the IPPC standard meet the requirements of the EC? Does the EC  have any plan to relax the standard to IPSM-
15 rules in the spirit of eliminating unnecessary trade obstacles?  Answer
 
The "debarking" requirement (Council Directive 2000/29/EC , Annex IV.A.1, point 2, first indent) is 
not applicable as of 1st January 2009. Its app lication has been postponed through the Commission 
Directive 2008/109/EC of 28 November 2009 (OJ L 319, p.68, 29.11.2008) and shall be applied only 
as of 1st July 2009. The draft revised text of the ISPM-15 is being proposed  for the adoption by the 
Commission on Phytosanitary Measures (CPM-4) meeting in Rome scheduled on 30.3.-3.4.2009, 
which contains exactly the same pr ovision on debarking as provided fo r in the Community legislation. 
The proposed inclusion of the debarking provision into the revised ISPM-15 is based on the outcome 
of the work undertaken by the Technical Panel on Forest Quarantine (TPFQ), established under the 
auspices of the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC/CPM) and composed of internationally recognized forest ry experts, which analyzed the available research data on the 
phytosanitary risk posed by bark on wood packaging material. The TPFQ concluded that there is a 
technical justification to require that wood packaging material in international trade should be free 
from bark with a precisely defined tolerance level for the presence of small pieces of bark ensuring 
that the phytosanitary risk is kept to an acceptable level and that such requi rement should be included 
in the revised ISPM No 15. If the revised IS PM-15 is approved by CPM-4 there will be no 
discrepancy between the Community requirements and the ISPM-15. 
 
Question 33 
On 7 March, 2007, the EU Tea Leaves Committee is sued a new regulation on the maximum residue 
levels of agricultural chemicals. The amended maximum residue limits (MRLs) of the EC and Germany involve 227 agricultural chemicals, am ong which the MRLs of 207 items, accounting for 
91.2%, are the lowest detection limits. 
Since July 1999, the EC has greatly increased and toughened the inspections on pesticide residues on 
imported tea leaves. The number of pesticide residue s has been raised from 6 in 1999 to 216 in 2007, 
93.6% of whose MRLs are established at 0.1 mg/kg, the lowest limits of analytical determination, 
thereby greatly increasing the difficulties of exporting tea leaves for developing countries. In addition, 
the EC insists on the inspection of pesticide resi dues of exported tea leaves according to Commission 
Directive No. 98/82/EC of 27 October 1998, that is, inspecting pesticide residues in and on dried tea 
leaves of one kilogram per sample rather than tea in its liquid form as was the usual practice. This method of selecting samples of tea leaves has led to a great number of exports exceeding MRLs. As agricultural residual levels on tea leaves establishe d by the EC have become increasingly stringent, 
China’s exports to the EU suffered a dramatic decline. China’s exports of tea leaves to the EC stood at 
17,600 tons in 2006, down from 42,600 tons (to 25 EC Member States) in 1998 and a drop of 58.69% 
over the nine-year period.    WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 57 
 
 
 Answer  
The harmonisation of MRL's for pesticides has represen ted a big advance in terms of trade because it 
has clarified and simplified the MRL situation at EU l evel. Therefore, there is  not any more "national 
MRLs". For all those substances non-specified, the EC does not have enough information, especially 
concerning the toxicological endpoints and residue tria ls. Therefore, the EC is not able to set any 
MRLs different from the limit of determination (LOD) in order to avoid any risk for potential 
European consumers. The EC will set MRLs for third countries (as import tolerances) if it is 
requested by them in accordance with  article 6 and 7 to Regulation 396/2005.  
 Question 34 
In April 2004, the EU published Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council 
amending, as regards traditional herbal medicina l products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community 
code relating to medicinal products  for human use (hereinafter re ferred to as the EU Traditional 
Herbal Medicine Law). The EU Traditional Herbal Medicine Law plays a key role in standardizing 
and regulating the medicinal products. Although it  seemingly affords traditional herbal medicinal 
products from China an opportunity to be gran ted as qualified medicinal products, it actually 
constitutes a barrier to market access. There are still many obstacles for Chinese traditional herbal 
medicinal products to enter the EU market as medicines, such as: 
a) it is difficult for Chinese traditional herbal medicine s to meet the register conditions stipulated 
in the EU Traditional Herbal Medicine Law; 
b) Second, even if the importers of Chinese trad itional herbal medicines could provide various 
evidence that a particular product in question fulfills the requirements for the register, it 
seems impossible for traditional herbal medici nes meet the EU efficacy requirements in the 
EU Member States; 
c) Third, the complex composition (including herbs,  medicines of animal and mineral) of the 
Chinese traditional medicines could not meet the requirements of the EU Traditional Herbal 
Medicine Law, i.e. exclusively of plant subs tances and sometimes of minerals under specific 
conditions, but not any animal substances 
Therefore, China hopes that the EU will  
a) recognize the discrepancies in theories between  Chinese traditional medicine and the Western 
medicine and in view of the long historical c linical application of herbal medicine in China 
and provide a much longer transitional period,  extending it from April 2011 to April 2019.  
b) Recognize some classical Chinese patent medici nes, such as the Pill of Six Drugs with 
Rehmannia and the Wuji Baifeng Pill, which have  been demonstrated to contain no toxicity, 
recorded in China Pharmacopoeia  for more than 15 years, and used widely for a long time. 
These medicines should not be subject to the requirement of at least 15 years of medicinal use in the EU, but may use a simplified regist ration procedure by allowing operators to 
provide their entry in China Pharmacopoeia and their wide use in the EU market.  
c) introduce a simplified registration procedur e for newly developed Chinese traditional 
medicines that have been registered with the competent Chinese medicinal authorities after 
due examination and approval, already placed on the market and found a wide application in the EU and exempt the requirement of 15 years of medicinal use within the EU. 
 
Answer
 
By the adoption of Directive 2004/24/EC, a simplified procedure for the registration of traditional herbal medicinal products was introduced in the European Community. The simplified procedure 
allows the registration of herbal medicinal pr oducts without requiring particulars and documents on 
tests and trials on safety and efficacy,  provided that there is sufficient  evidence of the medicinal use of 
the product throughout a period of at least 30 years, including at least 15 years in the Community.  
 The simplified registration procedure is intended to  facilitate access to the market of traditional 
herbal medicinal products, which otherwise c ould only be placed on the market following the WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 58  
 
 granting of a marketing authorisation which requires  the submission of particulars and documents on 
preclinical tests and clinical trials in order to de monstrate the safety and efficacy of the product.  
 In order to be eligible for the simplified registra tion procedure, the medicinal product can exclusively 
contain as active ingredient one or more herbal su bstances or one or more herbal preparations. In 
addition, the herbal medicinal products can contain sa fe vitamins or minerals  provided that their 
action is ancillary to that of the herbal active ingredients.  a) Extension of the transitional p eriod from April 2011 to April 2019 
 
Article 2(2) of Directive 2004/24/EC provides that  for the traditional herbal medicinal products 
which are already on the market on 30 April 2004,  the competent authorities shall apply the 
provisions of the directive within seven years after its entry into force. Accordingly, a transitional 
period until 30 April 2011 is provided to the co mpanies responsible for the placing on the market in 
order to upgrade the dossiers of these medicinal  products in accordance with the requirements 
following from the simplified registration procedure.  
 China asks the Commission to extend the period till Ap ril 2019. In this regard it should be mentioned 
that in order to provide the necessary data for reg istration, the companies responsible for the placing 
on the market of the products have had a transitional  period of seven years in  order to obtain the 
registration/marketing authorisation. The Commission has no evidence that the transitional period of 
7 years is not sufficient to compile a dossier for th e simplified registration procedure. Furthermore, a 
prolongation of the transitional period can only be adopted by the European Parliament and the 
Council through codecision following a proposal from the Commission.   b) Approval of traditional Chinese medicine whic h does not fulfil the requirement for at least 
 15 years traditional use in the Community  
 The requirement for at least 15 years traditional us e in the Community was introduced as it was 
considered difficult to gather information on the trad itional use of a product from other parts of the 
world, especially data on safety, since pharmacovig ilance systems vary widely across the world. Any 
changes to this particular requirement would have to be adopted by the European Parliament and the 
Council through codecision following a Commissions proposal.  
 However, in order to ea se the access for traditional medicinal produc ts from other parts of the world, 
it should be pointed out that with regard to the simplified registration proced ure, traditional use in 
the Community may be accepted if evidence can be su pplied of the same use for which registration is 
sought, even if this use was without registra tion or authorisation as a medicinal product. 
Furthermore, if the product still not meet the requirement of at least 15 years use within the 
Community, but is otherwise eligible for simplified registration, the product must be referred to the 
Committee on Herbal Medicinal Products (HMPC) for assessment whether a ll the other conditions 
for simplified registration as set out in Article 16a of Directive 2001/83/EC are met. In consequence, 
this procedure could ease the access of traditio nal Chinese herbal medicinal product to the 
Community market.  
 c) Introduction of a simplified registration procedure for newly adopted Chinese traditional 
 medicines  
On 29 September 2008, the Commission adopted a Communication to the Council and the European 
Parliament concerning the Report on the experience acquired as a result of the application of the 
provisions of Chapter 2a of Directive 2001/83/EC,  as amended by Directive 2004/24/EC, on specific 
provisions applicable to traditio nal herbal medicinal products. 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 59 
 
 
 In the Communication the Commission concludes that  it is prepared to consider extending the 
simplified registration procedure to products other t han herbal substances with a long tradition of 
safe use, such as such as honey, royal jelly, propolis, fish oils, minerals , micro-organisms and other 
substances. This proposed extension would enable cert ain medicinal products fr om specific European 
or non-European medicine systems to be eligible fo r the simplified registration procedure with a view 
to placing them on the market as traditional medi cinal products. At the same time the Commission 
concludes that more experience with the requirement  for at least 15 years use in the Community has 
to be gathered with a view to assessing its necess ity, and pending this asses sment, the requirement 
should be maintained.  
As mentioned under b), the simplified registration pr ocedure already provides for the possibility for 
referrals to the HMPC in situa tions where the product does not fulfil the requirement of 15 years use 
within the Community.   However, if a registration of a newly developed Chin ese traditional medicine is not possible under the 
simplified registration procedure, the normal ma rketing authorisation procedure will have to be 
followed the same way as it will have to be follow ed for newly developed herbal medicinal products 
from within the EU not fulfilling the requirements for registration under the simplified registration procedure.   Question 35 
The EC maintains the most stringent inspection requi rement on aflatoxin in peanuts, which is much 
higher than international standard. Many Members have expressed concerns since it was in place.  
Moreover, it is reported by some exporters that the EC implements an even more stringent inspection 
requirement over Chinese peanut export, which Chin a believes creates discriminatory treatment for 
Chinese products. For example, requirement by the EC on Chinese peanuts is less than 2PPB 
(aflatoxin B1) and 4PPB (overall level) while the one on peanuts from other Members is less than 
8PPB. Moreover, Chinese peanut export shall be re -examined by the EC inspection authorities after 
being inspected by China, while U.S. peanut expor t to the EC does not have to go through the same 
inspection.  Therefore, China would like the EC to confirm the above mentioned information. If so, please clarify 
the following: 
a) What is the rationale behind the particularly stringent requirement for Chinese peanut export? 
Why is the requirement for same substance, i. e. aflatoxin, different among Members? Does 
the EC regard it discriminatory?  
b) does the EC have any plan to grant equa l treatment to China’s peanut export? 
 
Answer
 
The maximum limits for "aflatoxin" in peanuts are in force since 1st January 1999. For peanuts and 
derived products thereof intended for direct human c onsumption or as an ingredient in foodstuffs, 
maximum limits of 4 µg/kg aflatoxin total (B1 +B 2 + G1 + G2) and 2 µg/kg aflatoxin B1 have been 
established at EU level (these levels are applicable  to all peanuts independent from the origin)  
Sorting techniques and other possibl e physical treatments which redu ce the aflatoxin content can be 
carried out on unprocessed peanuts to  obtain the final consumer product.  
 Taking these techniques into account, higher maxi mum limits for unprocessed peanuts (15 µg/kg for 
aflatoxin total and 8 µg/kg for afla toxin B1), which are to be subjected to a sorting or other physical 
treatment, before their human consumption or thei r use as an ingredient in foodstuffs, have been 
established (the levels are applicable to all peanuts independent from the origin and the level for 
aflatoxin total is fully in line with CODEX level).  Specific labelling provisi ons are provided for the 
application of these higher levels.  Restrictive measures as regards aflatoxins in pe anuts from China have been put in place since 2002 
to protect the public health given the frequent  problems observed with non-compliance in the years WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 60  
 
 2001 and 2002. It is important that prevention me asures are applied at all stages of the production 
and distribution chain to prevent the contamination by aflatoxins. The Competent authorities must 
have a control system in place to ensure that these prevention measures are correctly applied.   
The control results indicate that the situation as re gards presence of aflatoxins in peanuts originating 
from China was improving in 2007 but very much wo rsening in 2008. It woul d be appropriate if the 
Chinese authorities can provide an explanation for this worsening situation in 2008.  
Controls are risk based and safeguard measures are also based upon the risk. From the number of 
RASFF notifications it can be observed that the risk of aflatoxin presence in peanuts from China is 
much higher than from peanuts from US (Notifications on aflatoxins in peanuts:  China: 14 in 2009, 
166 in 2008, 54 in 2007 versus US: 6 in 2009, 14 in 2008 and 16 in  2007). So the safeguard measures 
and stricter controls as regards peanuts from China are justified to protect public health and are not 
to be considered as discriminatory without justification.  
 
Question 36 
Restriction on investment. Some administrations on investment maintained by EU Member States 
seem unnecessary and burdensome. For example  
a) In France, only French nationals, nationals of  the EU Members States or nationals of the 
countries with which France has signed bilateral agreements can invest in certain sectors. 
These include privately-run research institutions , insurance brokerages, casinos and gambling 
clubs, forwarding agencies, public market trading, audio-video communications, commodity brokerages, tobacco retailing, beverage retaili ng, French-language publishing firms, private 
security companies, telecommunications, theatri cal and artistic performing companies, and 
pharmacists. 
b) With the exception of investment from other EU Member States, Spain requires investment in 
the following fields to be licensed by the Dire ctorate General of Trade Policy in the Ministry 
of Economy, including investment in "sensitive industries" such as casinos, television, radio 
broadcasting, air transport and national defe nse, investment by foreign governments and 
investment by enterprises directly or indirectly controlled by foreign governments, and investment by foreign state-owned enterprises. 
c) Industries subject to investment restrictions in the Czech Republic include mortgage banking, 
asset management companies, passenger airlines,  passenger and freight road transport, bonds 
underwriting, and construction e ngineering service. For seven years after its accession to the 
EU, Czech bars foreign nationals from purc hasing agricultural farmland in the country. 
d) Hungary restricts foreign ownership to vary ing degrees in areas such as civil aviation, 
television and broadcasting. For ten years follo wing its EU accession, Hungary will prohibit 
foreigners from purchasing its land. 
Could the EC please share with whether it is consid ering relaxing these restrictions in the spirit of 
trade facilitation? 
 
Answer  
The Treaty establishing the European Community provides for the full liberalisation of capital 
movements within the EC and vis-à-vis third countri es. This general framework makes the EC one of 
the most open economies around the world. The EC is committed to maintaining and furthering an 
open investment environment.  
 Question 37 
The EC has maintained a large number of MFN exemptions in trade in services, making itself 
virtually one of the Members with the largest MFN exemptions. However, since the EC is one of the 
leading players in the WTO, such practice seems compromising EC’s role. Therefore, China would 
like to know if the EC will attemp t to reduce the number of its MFN ex emptions unilaterally or in the 
context of the current DDA. 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 61 
 
 
 Answer  
The EC remains open to negotiations on further reductions in the context of the DDA, however only 
on the basis that other WTO members reciprocate.  Question 38 
In the constructions services, the EC tends to u se the construction service providers coming from its 
neighboring countries. Has the EC any plan to liberaliz e its restrictions against the use of such service 
providers coming from other regions?  
Answer
 
An important part of trade in construction servi ces takes place under government procurement. The 
EC is a Member of the Government Procurem ent Agreement, which gives to its Members a 
preferential access to the EC construction procurem ent market. Outside government procurement, the 
WTO commitments of the EC are qu ite liberal in construction services. In practical terms, as for any 
activity performed abroad, it is natural that servi ce suppliers of neighbouring countries might more 
easily accede to the EC because of their bett er knowledge of the market and European countries and 
geographical proximity with their home country.   
 Question 39 
The criteria and administrative procedures of some of the EU Member States governing the entry of 
natural persons who wish to provide services to th eir clients are unnecessarily burdensome and appear 
to be unreasonable.  China would like to know if the EC will review a nd improve those criteria and procedures in such a 
way that they will make the EC’s commitmen ts under the GATS practically effective and 
commercially meaningful? 
 
Answer
 
The EC does not agree with the statement that "The  criteria and administrative procedures of some of 
the EU Member States governing the entry of natura l persons who wish to provide services to their 
clients are unnecessarily burdensome and appear to be unreasonable." 
 
Question 40 According to the Schedule of Specific Commitments  of the European Communities and their member 
states (Supplement 4), under Mode 1 and Mode 2, it says "higher premium tax is due for insurance contracts (except for contracts on reinsurance and re trocession) which are written by a subsidiary not 
established in the Community or by a branch not est ablished in Austria."  Is Austria the only country 
in the EC to have such requirements? It also says "exception from the higher tax can be granted". 
What are the conditions for a financial institu tion from a non-member country to receive such 
exception? Will Austria consider removing this tax requirement?  
Answer
 
Each Member State is free to pursue its own taxa tion objectives. Any taxation policy of a Member 
State which discriminates between domestic and fo reign services suppliers in areas in which it has 
taken commitments under the GATS, is set out as a limitation in the EC consolidated schedule. 
 Question 41 
According to the report by the Secretariat on the EC Trade Policy Review on financial services, it is noted (note 152) that, "Under the Directive adopted , any barriers that remain after the screening 
process and the application of the freedom to pr ovide services principle, will still need to be 
challenged country by country, rule by rule. As the legal process can be costly and slow, it will 
seldom be worthwhile for service providers to do  this. Therefore, according to the OECD, the 
Directive needs to be bolstered by quicker and ch eaper remedies (OECD, 2007b). " We would like to 
know the EC’s response to this. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 62  
 
 Answer
 
Please note that financial services are not included in the scope of the Services Directive. With regard to those services that are within the scope of the Services Directive, the EC believes that 
the implementation of the Directive is a very significant  opportunity to remove barriers to the internal 
market.  The European Commission is currently assis ting Member States in order to make sure that 
the screening process foreseen by the Services Di rective is carried out in a correct and 
comprehensive way.  In addition, it is impor tant to note that the Services Directive requests Member States to report to the 
Commission on the results of their review and sets up a process of "mutual evaluation", which will 
ensure transparency and peer review. Th is process will provide an impor tant opportunity for Member 
States to modernise their legal and administrative frameworks.  The Commission is and shall be working to ma ke sure that the ongoing screening process and the 
subsequent mutual evaluation exercise result in the elimination of barriers contrary to the Services 
Directive.  Finally, if need there be it is important to note that once the transposition period of the Services 
Directive is over, the Commission may launch infr ingement procedures against those Member States 
that have done a bad or insufficient implementation of the directive or against those Member States which violate the directive.  
Question 42 It is mentioned in the report by the Secretariat on the EC Trade Policy Review on financial services 
that "on the same day (15 October 2008), the Co mmission modified the EC accounting rules to help 
financial institutions cope with problems resulti ng from mark-to-market valuation of assets". We 
would like to have the details of the modification to the application of the fair value accounting rules. 
We would like to know if this modification is temporary, and what is the EC’s judgement on the 
long-term effect such modifications may have on the financial reporting and asset valuation of the 
financial institutions, and the possible s ubsequent influence to the investors. 
 
Answer
 
The European Commission adopted on 15 October 2008 amendments to accounting standards. These 
changes followed modifications by th e IASB of IAS 39 and ensure that EC companies have the same 
flexibility as competitors in other jurisdictions to recl assify - in rare circumst ances - assets previously 
classified in the held-for-trading category into the held-to-maturity category. With the new, permanent 
rules EC financial institutions would no longer be obli ged to reflect market fluc tuation in their financial 
statements for these kinds of assets. The EC cons iders that these amendments are appropriate and have 
an overall positive long-t erm effect for EC compani es, investors and markets. 
Detail: amendments to IAS 39 and IFRS 7  
The amendments to IAS 39 Financial Instrument s: Recognition and Measurement introduce the 
possibility of certain reclass ifications for companies applying International Financial Reporting 
Standards (IFRS). The amendments to IFRS 7 Financi al Instruments: Disclosures introduce additional 
disclosure requirements linked to these reclassifications  in order to ensure full transparency for users of 
financial statements. 
 
Question 43 
According to the report by the Secretariat on the EC Trade Policy Review on financial services, it is 
explained that, "The key legislative development in the subsector during the review period was the 
adoption, in July 2007, of the Insurance Solvency  II project, which aims to overhaul EC regulation 
and supervision, in order to bring it more into line with international developm ents in supervision and 
financial reporting, including Basel II rules fo r banks. Risk-based calculations of the solvency 
requirements for insurance undertakings are to be  introduced, and calculation of insurance liabilities 
(technical provisions) will be harmonized, while fo stering the convergence of supervisory practices. 
The Commission aims to have Solvency II in opera tion in 2012." Under Solvency II, insurers would 
be required to take account of all types of risk to  which they are exposed and to manage those risks  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 63 
 
 
 more effectively. We would like to know the current  status of the EC’s adoption of the Insurance 
Solvency II, and if the EC thinks the applicati on of Insurance Solvency II could have been an 
effective way to mitigate the impact of the current  financial crisis upon the global insurance industry. 
 
Answer  
Solvency II is indeed aimed towards ensuring that  insurance service suppliers are financially sound 
and can withstand adverse events and updates the quantative, qualitative and regulatory requirements to fit in with the changes in the way insuran ce service suppliers conduct their business. Therefore, 
and as stated by the European Council earlier this  year, the quick adoption of Solvency II is part of 
the measures the EC is taking to tackle the current financial crisis. The Committee of European 
Insurance and Occupational Pe nsions Supervisors (CEIOPS) has recently published a paper on 
Solvency II and lessons learned from the Finacial crisi s. The main conclusion of the paper confirms 
this view. Solvency II is ne eded more than ever because: 
 1)on-going field testing has demonstrated o verall architecture of Solvency II to be sound, 
although some refinements may be needed at level 2.  
 
 2) in crisis situations supervisors have an even  greater need for harm onised and risk sensitive 
information governance, risk management, internal cont rols and disclosure need to be strengthened. 
 3) more emphasis needs to be put on supervision at group level 
 
Question 44 According to the Informal Note by the Secretariat (Job (09)/10), whic h reflects the current situation of 
the notifications made by Members under relevant GATS provisions since the agreement’s entry into 
force on 1 January 1995, China notes that the EC has not made any notifications to the Council for Trade in Services under Article III of the GATS si nce 1999. Article III provides that "Each Member 
shall promptly and at least annually inform the Coun cil for Trade in Services of the introduction of 
any new, or any changes to existing laws, regulati ons or administrative guidelines which significantly 
affect trade in services covered by its specific commitments under this Agreement". Could the EC 
please confirm that no new laws, regulations or administrative guidelines or changes to existing laws, regulations, directives or administrative guidelines wh ich significantly affect trade in services covered 
by its specific commitments under this Ag reement have been introduced since 1999? 
 Answer
 
The issue of notification under the GATS is curren tly reviewed by the Council of Trade in services 
(regular session) and the EC will take part to this  review with the view of improving the current 
notification procedure. 
 
NORWAY I  
 
The question is related to the WTO Secretariat’s report (WT/TPR/S/214). 
 
(5) T RADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS  
(III) P REFERENTIAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS  
(b) Agreements with non-Euro pean countries or groupings 
 
Economic Partnership Agreements 
 
Question 
The footnote 64 related to para. 56 explains which other trade-related issues that are addressed in 
Economic Partnership Agreements. Could the Eu ropean Communities elaborate on how trade and 
labour standards are encouraged in such agreem ents and other preferential trade agreements? 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 64  
 
 Answer
 
Trade and Labour issues in trade agreements:  The EC aims to include trade and sustainable devel opment provisions, includi ng trade and labour, in 
its bilateral trade agreements. The EC approach is  based on cooperation and dialogue, including 
shared commitment to international standards and rec ognition of each party's right to regulate and 
determine the level of protection.   The CARIFORUM-EC EPA on includes such provisions in its Chapter 5 on "Social Aspects" which 
reaffirms the Parties' commitments to core labo ur standards as defined in the relevant ILO 
Convention, the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work and its Follow-Up 
and the UN Ministerial Declaration on Full Em ployment and Decent Work (Economic and Social 
Council, July 2006).  The Parties retain their right to determine their ow n level of social regulation. The key discipline in 
the Chapter is the undertaking not to lower social standards in order to derive trade or investment 
benefit. There is also a commitment not to use labour  standards for "protectionist trade purposes". As 
well as using existing bodies and the EPA's Consultative Committee for consultation and monitoring, the Agreement provides for a Committee of Experts to play a role in handling issues arising from its 
implementation in this area.  GSP/GSP+: 
The EC also refers to the Genera lised System of Preferences, and the special incentive scheme for 
labour standards (GSP+). GSP+ preferences are designed to enc ourage countries to implement 
international standards in human and labour rights, by granting in return additional preferential 
access to the EU. These preferences can be te mporarily withdrawn for serious and systematic 
violations of the eight ILO conventions on co re labour standards, including child labour, forced 
labour, discrimination and anti-union practices. In 2006, following a Commission investigation and 
an ILO assessment into alleged systematic and serious violations of freedom of association and the 
right to collective bargaining in Belarus, a decisi on was indeed made to withdraw GSP preferences 
from this country.  
 
NORWAY II
 
 
The questions are related to the WT O Secretariat’s report (WT/TPR/S/214). 
 
III TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(1) I NTRODUCTION  
 
Question 1 
According to Para. 3 no changes were made to the EC  legislation on trade remedies. As part of its 
Global Europe strategy the European Commission adopted a Green Paper on "Europe’s Trade Defence Instruments in a Changing Global Economy"  in December 2006. This started a reflection 
process. Norway was among those invited to partic ipate in the process, which Norway did by 
submitting an extensive response to the Commissi on’s questionnaire. The EU Trade Commissioner 
stated later (November 2007) that his "approach is  not radical change, but clarity", and that the 
Commission was planning to focus on making Europe ’s trade defence instruments "stronger by 
making them more accessible, more transparent".   
We would like to know the status  of this reflection process, and we  would appreciate information on 
when we may expect to see the results that  the Commissioner envisaged, including increased 
transparency regarding the EC’s trade defence instru ments. Is the decline in contingency measures by 
the EC, as noted in the Secretariat’s report, a result of the same process?    WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 65 
 
 
 Answer  
The public consultation launched by the EC on its trade defence instruments received a large number 
of replies. The EC undertook a comprehensi ve analysis summarising the responses to the 
consultation. This evaluation report is published on the website of the Commission (http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/do cs/2007/november/tradoc_136846.pdf). 
 
In January 2008 the Trade Commissioner concluded that  more reflection time is needed to continue 
the Green Paper process. There is no specific timel ine for finishing these public consultations.    
 There is no link between this reflection process and the decline in contingency measures, as noted in 
the Secretariat's report.  
(2) M
EASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS  
(v) Customs valuation and rules of origin (b) Rules of origin 
 
Question 2 
Para. 38 states the following; "At present a draft Commission regulation on the reform of GSP rules of 
origin is under discussion in the Customs Code Committee.
15  If adopted, it will change both the 
substance (in particular, the rules for determini ng what is sufficient working or processing and 
regional cumulation) and the procedures (introducti on of a system of statements on origin made 
directly by registered exporters) with the aim of making the rules simpler and more "development-
friendly", allowing beneficiary countries, in particul ar the least developed countries, to take greater 
advantage of the preferential.  Once agreed a nd adopted, the new rules on substance would be 
implemented as of 1 January 2010 and the new procedural rules as of 2013.  According to a Commission Communication of March 2005, these new rules should progressively be extended to 
other preferential trade arrangements, subject to case-by-case negotiations." 
Norway commends the EC for making the rules of origin simpler and more "development-friendly". 
Could the EC provide information on what will be th e most significant changes to the existing rules? 
Furthermore, Norway would like to know if there a timeline has been scheduled for the extension of 
the rules to other preferential trade arrangements. We would also like to know whether this also 
includes free trade agreements, and if so, whether the EC intends to renegotiate the rules of origin in 
their existing preferential trade agreements, or if  the new rules will solely be applied to new 
agreements.  
Answer
 
Given the stage of the legislati ve process currently reached, for the moment it is difficult to foresee 
the precise elements of the changes. The main feat ures of the reform will be in line with the 
orientations given in the European Commission's communication of March 2005, notably, simplification and development-friendliness. The decision on the details of extension of the new GSP rules of origin to other arrangements and the necessary procedures thereof will be taken once the rules are adopted and tested within the GSP 
scheme. 
 
                                                     
 
15 European Commission online information, "Preferential Origin – New Developments". Viewed at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/ customs/customs_duties/rules_origin/preferential/article_777_en.htm 
[10 June 2008]. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 66  
 
 IV TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(2) A
GRICULTURE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES  
(ii) Common Agricultural Policy 
 
Question 3 
Para. 25 in the secretariat’s report describes limitati ons in the intervention system for wheat: "For 
wheat, intervention purchases will be possible du ring the intervention period at a price of 
€101.31/tonne for up to 3 million tonnes."   To what extent does the EC consider this interv ention system to support the price of wheat production 
beyond the 3 million tonnes limit? Does the EC fo resee continuing to calculate its market price 
support for wheat using its entire annual wheat production following these changes? 
 We note that the European Communities have furt her moved to reform their agricultural policy 
through the recent health-check, inter alia by pr eparing the eventual abolition of dairy quotas and 
limiting intervention in the cereals sector. We ob serve, however, that while the secretariat's report 
describes the suspension of public intervention for a number of commodities, the Communities may in 
fact still continue public intervention wh enever market conditions so require. 
 
Answer:
 
The communities do not intend to change its notific ation practices concerning public intervention of 
wheat. Whenever intervention is open, also for a limited quantity, the whole of the wheat production 
will be considered in the calculation of AMS.  
 
JAPAN  
 
I. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT (3) TRADE AND INVESTMENT  Question 1 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 20-21, page12 
In the report, the amount of FDI in the EC appears considerable, whilst the large part of it is from the 
EC/EFTA member countries. Besides the geographi cal distance and the historical, political and 
economic bonds, what other factors may influence this  point, such legal or regulatory ones? In this 
respect, the Japan would like to quote the OECD’s  "FDI Regulatory Restrictive Index" in 2006 
(OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 525), according to which the average figures for 
the EU’s 19Member States are higher than those of Japan and the United States. Japan wishes to hear 
the EC’s views on this.  Answer
 
FDI is influenced by a multitude of factors, th e ones cited by Japan (dis tance, political, language, 
cultural and economic bonds) being very relevant. The FD I regulatory restrictive index is one attempt 
to capture some of the factors influencing FDI. In particular the FDI regulatory restrictive index 
measures formal or statutory conditions applicabl e to foreign investment. However, as the OECD 
notes, the index does not measure many other im portant variables, notably the informal or 
institutional measures affecting foreign investors. Some FDI measures can be more important than 
others and therefore the absolute scores on the FDI rest rictiveness index, while  informative, should 
be interpreted narrowly.  For in stance, another OECD document notes that "FDI flows can be held 
back by opaque informal public or  private measures. Indeed, clai ms abound that such practices are 
used systematically to limit foreign ownership of domestic businesses.  
 At the same time, according to an OECD repor t entitled OECD’s FDI Regulatory Restrictiveness 
Index: Revision and Extension to More Economi es and Sectors published in 2007: "Among OECD 
countries, the most open countries tend to be in Europe. Since the late 1980s, intra-European Union  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 67 
 
 
 (EU) FDI flows are almost completely unrestrict ed, and the European Economic Area (EEA) has also 
liberalised intra-bloc investment to some extent . In addition, a number of European countries have 
minimal overt restrictions on inflows  from non-EU and non-EEA countries." 
 To conclude, measuring FDI restrictiveness is a d ifficult endeavour. However, what really matters in 
the end is the actual FDI flows. And as the repor t says, FDI inflows in th e EU are considerable, 
reinforcing the OECD finding reproduced ab ove about EU's relative openess to FDI. 
 Question 2 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 20-21, page12 
On capital movements including FDI, Article 58,1(b) of the Treaty Establishing the European Community allows EU member countries "to take measures which are justified on grounds of public 
policy or public security". Could the terms of "publ ic policy or public security" contain include the 
concept other than "national security", such as " public order", "public safety" and "essential security 
interests"? Please explain the concept of these terms in detail. 
 
Answer
 
In the absence of a definition of the terms "pub lic order", "public safety" and "essential security 
interests" in terms of the question raised by Japan,  it can be neither confirmed nor excluded that these 
concepts are included in the notion of "grounds of  public policy or public security" in the sense of 
Art. 58(1b) of the EC Treaty.  
The only authoritative source for interpretation of the notion of "grounds of public policy or public 
security" in the sense of Art. 58(1b) of the EC Treaty is the European Court of Justice (ECJ). From ECJ case law, the following - non-compreh ensive - clarifications can be obtained: 
 - Case C-54/99, Église de Scientologie, §17:  "… while Member States are still, in principle, 
free to determine the requirements of public po licy and public security in the light of their 
national needs, those grounds must, in the Community context and, in particular, as 
derogations from the fundamental principle of  free movement of capital, be interpreted 
strictly, so that their scope cannot be determined unilaterally by each Member State without any control by the Community instituti ons." See also cases C-503/99, Commission v 
Belgium, §47; C-483/99, Commission v France, §48; C-463/00, Commission v Spain, §72 as 
well as case 36/75, Rutili, §§ 26, 27 for the free movement of workers. 
 - Case T-315/01, Kadi, §110: "…the Community has no express power to impose restrictions on the movement of capital and paym ents. However, Article 58 EC allows the 
Member States to adopt measures having such an e ffect to the extent to which this is, and 
remains, justified in order to achieve the objecti ves set out in the article, in particular, on 
grounds of public policy or public security…" See also Case T-306/01, Ahmed Ali Yusuf and 
Al Barakaat International Foundation, §146.  - Case C-54/99, Église de Scientologie, §17:  "…public policy and p ublic security may be 
relied on only if there is a genuine and sufficie ntly serious threat to a fundamental interest 
of society." See also case C-348/96, Calfa , §21, case 36/75, Rutili,§28, and case 30/77, 
Bouchereau, §35, for the free movement of workers.  - Case C-54/99, Église de Scientologie, §17: "… those derogations must not be misapplied so 
as, in fact, to serve purely economic ends." 
 
- Case C-423/98, Albore, §19: "…the requi rements of public security cannot justify 
derogations from the Treaty rules such as  the freedom of capital movements unless the 
principle of proportionality is observed, wh ich means that any derogation must remain 
within the limits of what is appropriate and necessary for achieving the aim in view." Also WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 68  
 
 case C-54/99, Église de Scientologie, §18: "…me asures which restrict the free movement of 
capital may be justified on public-policy and public-security grounds only if they are 
necessary for the protection of the interests which they are intended to guarantee and only 
in so far as those objectives cannot be attained  by less restrictive meas ures." See also joined 
cases C-163/94, C-165/94 and C-250/94, Sanz de Lera and Others, §23. 
 
Question 3 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 20-21, page12 
The Außenwirtschaftsgesetz that the Governme nt of Germany is considering now targets non-
EU/EFTA member countries and discriminates between EU/EFTA member countries and non-
member countries. In this respect, the Government of Germany claims that this act complies with the 
Treaty Establishing the European Community. What thoughts does the European Commission have 
on that point? Since the Government of Japan does not  feel that the historical, political and economic 
bonds among EU/EFTA member countries are convincing, please elaborate on it from a legal perspective, including the compatibility of the German  regulations with Article 56 of the EC Treaty, 
which prohibits "all restrictions on the moveme nt of capital between Member States and between 
Member States and third countries." 
 
Answer
 
The substance of this question is not clear. We woul d invite Japan to clarify. It should also be taken 
into account that the Commission does not comment on mere considerations by a Member State. If a 
question, request or suggestion is addressed by  a Member States to the Commission, the Commission 
will respond. The Commission is not evaluating histor ical ties but developing, using and safeguarding 
the "acquis communautaires" in force, the legal instruments of the EC.  Question 4 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 20-21, page12 
In its Communications of 27 February 2008, the European Commission published the guidance as "A common European approach to Sovereign Wealth Funds". Please elaborate on how to ensure the 
coordination with the OECD’s Freedom of Investme nt Project and the work – the Generally Accepted 
Principles and Practices (GAPP) - of the Interna tional Working Group (IWG) of the IMF. Though the 
Government of Japan recognizes it as a regally non-bi nding guidance, would you explain the detail of 
its nature from legal, economic and political perspectives (e.g. the impact on member countries)? 
 
Answer
 
The Communication as a non-binding legal instru ment was intended to present the Commission’s 
view on the common European approac h to SWFs at a time when there was an open debate on how to 
react to the new situation resulting from the in creasing presence of state-owned investors from 
emerging economies in global capital markets. In addition to stating the Commission’s views on these 
developments this communication defined our approach for action in the following months.   This 
approach has been later endorsed by the European Council. The Communication was to serve several 
objectives. It confirmed EU commitment to an open investment environment and provided to 
originating countries the reassurance that they would c ontinue to find in the EU a clear, predictable, 
and reliable legal environment for their investment, already based on the European Treaty provisions 
on free movement of capital. It also affirmed no need for a special legislative initiative related to 
SWFs pointing out to the existing instruments that  are applicable to potential risks associated with 
SWFs, such as national prerogatives and existing po wers to protect legitimate public policy objective 
and interests. Finally it set out commonly sha red expectations for increased transparency, 
predictability and accountability of SWFs opera tions as the European contribution to the 
international work on potential solutions to SWFs' challenge held both by the IMF and the OECD.  
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 69 
 
 
 II. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(5) TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS  Question 5 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 33, page 21 
The Secretariat report mentions the EC has submitted sectoral initiatives on textiles, clothing, and footwear. This proposal does not set the details on modalities, for example, special and differential 
treatment, unlike the other 13 sectoral initiatives. Please explain the EC’s plan to set detail proposal 
and submit it.  
Answer
 
While is our view that it does not fall with in the TPR exercise to discuss details of the DDA 
negotiations and proposals thereto related, it can be said that the proposal submitted by the EC 
contains all the necessary details at this stage of  the negotiations and that further details shall be 
included in negotiation in consultation with possible participants.   
Question 6 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 55, page 27 and paragraph 57, page 28 As stated in 55, page 27 and paragraph 57, pa ge 28, the Cotonou trade preferences expired on 
31 December 2007. By that time, negotiations were concluded on an EPA with the Caribbean region, 
as well as a series of interim agreements with th e other ACP regions. Until 31 December 2007, these 
trade preferences were under the cover of a WTO waiv er from paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the General 
Agreement, approved at the Doha Ministerial Meeting. 
(1)  In this regard, Japan would like to be a dvised of how many countries the EC concluded such 
EPAs and interim agreements with, respectively, as of April 2009.  
(2)  Japan would also like to be advised of the outline of the interim agreements. 
(3)  Japan would like to be advised of how the EC justifies the interim agreements. Does the EC 
consider it unnecessary to gain another waiver fr om paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the General 
Agreement, concerning the interim agreements? 
 
Answer
 
(1) 35 countries in total: 
Full EPA:  Antigua and Barbuda, Baham as, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, the 
Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, Saint Christopher and 
Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad 
and Tobago 
Interim EPAs: Cameroon, Burundi, Keny a, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda, Comoros, 
Madagascar, Mauritius, Seychelles, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Fiji, Papua New  
Guinea, Côte d'Ivoire, Ghana, Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, 
Mozambique, Swaziland. 
 
(2) All interim agreements cover liberalization of trade in goods, safeguards and dispute 
settlement provisions. As they are interim agreemen ts in the sense that negotiations on full EPAs 
continue, they contain rendez-vous clauses on ot her trade issues such as trade and competition, 
intellectual property rights or trade in services. 
 
(3 The interim agreements establish Free Trade Areas between the EC and the ACP countries 
concerned in conformity with the rules of GATT Article XXIV. They do therefore not require a waiver 
from any GATT obligations. 
 
Question 7 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 68, page 30 
As stated in paragraph 68, page 30, a "special in centive arrangement for su stainable development and 
good governance" (the GSP+) provi des additional benefits to countries implementing international 
standards in sustainable development and good gove rnance. However, as stated in the report of the 
Appellate Body (WT/DS246/AB/R para.173), in granting such differential tariff treatment, WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 70  
 
 preference-granting countries are required, by virtue  of the term "non-discriminatory" I footnote 3 to 
the paragraph 2(a) of the Enabling Clause to ensure  that identical treatment is available to all 
similarly-situated GSP beneficiaries, that is, to all GSP beneficiaries that have the "development, 
financial and trade needs" to which the treat ment in question is intended to respond. 
Japan considers that the GSP+ could be interprete d as "discriminatory", by developing countries that 
are not permitted to benefit from the GSP+ regime. In  this regard, Japan would like to be advised of 
how the EC could justify the GSP+. 
 
Answer
 
The EC designed the Special Incentive Arr angement for Sustainable Development and Good 
Governance (GSP+) in order to comply fully with  the requirements of the GATT Enabling Clause as 
interpreted by the WTO Appellate  Body in the dispute settlement  case under reference.  The GSP+ 
scheme is founded on a holistic and universally a ccepted concept of sustainable development as 
recognized by international organizations and f ound in several international instruments and 
conventions.   The GSP+ offers additional tar iff preferences to support vulnerable developing 
countries in their ratification and effective implemen tation of 27 core international conventions on 
human and labour rights, environmental protec tion and good governance.  These additional 
preferences under GSP+ are designe d to promote further economic growth and thereby generate 
additional resources for sustainable development, wh ile the scheme does not impose any additional or 
unjustifiable burdens on other WTO Members or other beneficiaries of the EC GSP. 
 
The additional preferences under GSP+ are available to  all similarly-situated developing countries.  
Under Article 8:1 of the GSP Regulation (Counc il Regulation (EC) No 732/2008 of 22 July 2008), 
any vulnerable developing country which has ratified and effectively implemented the 27 core conventions, given an undertaking to maintain the ratification of the conventions and their 
implementing legislation and measures and acce pted regular monitoring and review of its 
implementation record in accordance with the impl ementation provisions of the conventions is 
eligible for GSP+ benefits.  The pr ocess to include countries on the list of GSP+ beneficiaries is fully 
transparent and based exclusively on the objecti vely verifiable criteria mentioned above.   
 Question 8 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 68, page 30 
The secretariat report explains the EC’s GSP and LDC duty-free, quota-free scheme. Please answer following questions: 
(1) Please explain import volume originating from LDC duty-free, quota-free scheme, respectively 
year 2006 and 2008. In additi on, please provide numbers, separately for Africa and Asia.  
(2) Please note the EC’s sensitive tariff lines b ased on the EC’s national tariff lines. 
(3) Please note the duties for GSP and LDC under EBA (Everything But Arms) initiatives. 
 Answer
 
As regards question (1) , import statistics for 2006 and 2007 are provided in the table below.  
Definitive statistics for 2008 are not yet available.  Taking into account both EBA and other preferential regimes under which impor ts from LDCs also take place,  notably ACP preferences, total 
imports on a duty-free basis into the EC from  LDCs amounted to €14.5 billion in 2006 and 
€17.2 billion in 2007, representing 82.4% and 86.5% of total imports from LDCs in those two years.  
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 71 
 
 
 EC Duty-Free Imports from LDCs (2006) (€ millions) 
2006 Total imports Imports under 
EBA (rate = 0) Imports under 
other preferences 
(rate = 0) Imports at MFN = 
0 Total at rate = 0 
African LDCs 10,831 104 2,057 7,680 9,841 
Asian LDCs 
(including Oceania) 6,700 4,363 8 245 4,616 
Caribbean LDCs 
(Haiti) 22 2 0 11 13 
Total 17,553 4,469 2,065 7,936 14,470 
 
EC Duty-Free Imports from LDCs (2007) (€ millions) 
2007 Total imports Imports under 
EBA (rate = 0) Imports under 
other preferences 
(rate = 0) Imports at MFN = 
0 Total at rate = 0 
African LDCs 13,272 43 2,485 10,000 12,529 
Asian LDCs 
(including Oceania) 6,579 4,276 18 355 4,648 
Caribbean LDCs 
(Haiti) 29 1 0 12 13 
Total 19,880 4,321 2,503 10,367 17,190 
 
As regards question (2), under the EC Combined No menclature as last updated at the end of 2008, a 
total of 6244 tariff lines are covered by the st andard general arrangement of the EC GSP scheme, 
while a further 2405 tariff lines - out of the total of 9568 - are duty free on an MFN basis.  "Sensitive 
products" for the purposes of the general arrangement  are identified in Annex II of the relevant EC 
Regulation (Council Regulation No 732 of 22 July 2008) .  Accordingly, there are currently 3215 tariff 
lines on which imports from beneficiaries under th e general arrangement benefit from a reduction 
from standard MFN rates.  Full details are provid ed in the EC's notification of its revised GSP 
scheme to the WTO (circulated in document WT/COMTD/N/4/Add.4 of 12 March 2009).  As regards question (3) , the Everything But Arms (EBA) schem e gives all LDCs duty-free access to 
the EU for all tariff lines except 23 tariff lines in HS Chapter 93 (Arms and Ammunition).  Imports of 
rice (HS 1006) and sugar (HS 1701) are presently s ubject to transitional expanding duty-free quotas 
and will be fully liberalised from October 2009.  
 
III. TRADE POLICY AND PRACTICES MEASURES 
(2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
 
Question 9 (WT/TPR/S/214) Table III.1, page 40 
The rate of tariff quotas to all tariff lines went up from 3.4% in 2006 to 4.8% in 2008. To which 
products and tariff lines did the EC introduced tariff quotas administration to? Why? The EC has not notified of their tariff quota utilization since 02/03 as noted in footnote 17 on page102. Has the 
increase in tariff quotas delayed its notification concerning them? 
 
Answer
 
The only new tariff quotas which have been crea ted result from Article XXIV.6 and Article XXVIII 
negotiations. The EC are well aware of the delay th at has arisen in complying with its notification 
obligations on quota fill. An extra effort is ongoing  to fully comply. On an indicative basis we can 
expect publication within the months to come.  
Question 10 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 19, page 41 
As stated in paragraph 19, page 41, the EC’s Sc hedule of tariffs concession (Schedule CXL) has not 
yet been certified. In particular, even lists of ta riff items affected by HS1996 have not yet been 
certified (G/MA/W/23/Rev.5). Japan is convinced that  the EC should proceed with the procedure for 
the certification to improve the transparency of th e EC’s Schedule of tariffs concession.  In this 
regard, Japan would like to be advised of how th e EC intends to move forward on this matter. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 72  
 
 Answer
 
The EU has been seeking certification of its CXL schedule for years. The question should be addressed to the four Members that still mainta in a reservation. The EU has given all the 
explanations required and since there is no substan tive reason for such reserv ations, it is confident 
they shall be quickly lifted. 
 
Question 11 (WT/TPR/S/214) Table III.2, page 41  
The Secretariat mentions the EC’s transport equipment MFN tariff. Their duties are very high as 
developed countries, for example, automobiles fo r 10% and commercial vehicles for 22%. To achieve 
free and open market access, the EC should redu ce their duties. Please note the EC’s viewpoint. 
 Answer
 
The current level of duties for all items covered by the EC Schedule of  commitments is the outcome of 
the balance of concessions achieved during the Uruguay  Round. This also applies to the automotive 
chapter, where it is difficult to imagine any unilatera l dismantlement of duties as the EC expects these 
concessions to be reciprocated in the DDA round.   
Question 12 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 47, page 51 
The agricultural tariff quotas are managed through  two methods: first come- first served (at the 
border), and import licensing.  Does the EC apply only one of the two methods to  each tariff quota, or are there any cases where a 
tariff quota of a product is mana ged through the two methods?  
And what percent are the quota-fill rates in each method?  
 
Answer
 
Only one method is applied to a given quota. The in formation on quota fills rates is included in the 
EC 'quota fill' WTO notification (MA: 2) - Last submitted notification G/AG/N/EEC/48 concerns the 
marketing year 2002/2003.  
 
Question 13 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 90, page 64 
There is a description that, up to 0.9%, the adventitious presence and technically unavoidable 
presence of products containing, consisting of or pr oduced from authorized GMOs is exempt to the 
labelling of GMOs.  
(1) What is the reason for application of 0.9% as a criterion for labelling requirements for GMOs? Is 
there any scientific evidence behind the criterion? 
(2) Does the EC conduct any surveillance in the mark et to detect GMOs in order to ensure 
appropriate GM labelling of the EC member states? If it does, what methods are used? 
(3) Does the EC have any plan to review  this criterion in the near future? 
 
Answer  
(1) The decision to define 0.9% as the labelling threshold for the adventitious and technical 
unavoidable presence of authorised GMOs was taken as the outcome of an intense debate involving 
the Commission (in its function of proposing authority) and the two co-decision authorities (the 
Council of Minister of the European Union and the European Parliament). 
This threshold has been defined taking into account of the strong request of the European citizens for 
a threshold that could be at the same time enforceable and as low as possible.  It is important to remind that the threshold has no  safety function (and thus needs no scientific basis) 
being only intended for cons umers' information purposes. 
 
(2) The Member States carry out systematic controls on the EU market to check the respect of the 
labelling previsions foreseen by the EU legislation.  The outcome of such controls is systematically 
communicated to the Commission and other Member States in the framework of the Standing Committee for Food Chain and Animal Health.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 73 
 
 
 Furthermore the Food and Veterinary office of the European Union performs each year different 
control mission in the Member States to verify their appropriate implementation of  the EU legislation, 
including the obligation of carrying out control for the presence of GMOs in the food/feed market. 
All the controls for the detection of GMOs are perf ormed taking into account of the specific detection 
methods validated by the Joint Research Centre of  the European Union, in the framework of the 
European Network of GMO Laboratories. 
 (3) No proposal has been prepared or is being prepared at this stage. 
 Question 14 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 95, page 65 
Regarding the figures on public procurement; 
(1) Does the EC have data as to the total contract value and the average or median contract value 
awarded by entities in Annex 1, 2 and 3 of th e Appendix I of the Agreement on Government 
Procurement (GPA) (broken down by services, supp lies and works) for all public procurement 
(not only those covered by the GPA)? 
(2) Would the EC plan to submit statistics of procurement to the WTO Committee on Government 
Procurement as required by the GPA? 
(3) Does each Member State of the EU have statistics of its procurement under the GPA? 
 
Answer
 
1) Please find below the breakdown of average contra ct values for contracts published in the Official 
Journal of the European Union (inc luding contracts not covered by the GPA), by type of contract 
(works, services and supplies) and by GPA Annex.  
Annex Type of contract Averages (EUR) 
Annex 1 Works 7.956.645,03    
Annex 1 Supplies 2.694.974,81    
Annex 1 Services 3.221.504,56    
Annex 2 Works 7.099.636,77    
Annex 2 Supplies 1.278.742,28    
Annex 2 Services 2.441.443,91    
Annex 3 Works 13.884.370,57    
Annex 3 Supplies 5.226.200,88    
Annex 3 Services 5.332.025,56    
 (2) The EC is preparing the statistical reports as required by article XIX.5 of the GPA. The 
reports will soon be circulated to the GPA Committee. (3) Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC both in clude specific provisions on statistics. 
Member States are required to provide the Eur opean Commission with statistics on the contracts 
awarded either covered or not by the GPA. 
 Question 15 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 96,  page 65 and Table III.10, page 68 
(1) Have the EC informed the WTO Committ ee on Government Procurement of the 
Directive 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC in accordance with paragraph 5 (b) Article 24 of the GPA? 
 
(2) In regard to Transport sector, what kinds of  entities are covered by the Directives 2004/17/EC? 
Are those entities covered also by the GPA? 
 
Answer
 
(1) The EC has not formally informed th e GPA Committee of Directives 2004/17/EC and 
2004/18/EC as the process of transposition and th e subsequent implementation are not fully 
completed.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 74  
 
 (2) Directive 2004/17/EC applies to activities relati ng to the provision or operation of networks 
providing a service to the public in the field of transport by railway, automated systems, tramway, 
trolley bus, bus or cable. The contracting entiti es covered by the Directive are public authorities, 
public undertakings as well private entities enjo ying special and exclusive rights. Private entities 
enjoying special and exclusive rights are not pa rt of the EC's commitments under the GPA. 
 
Question 16 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 96, page 66 
Could the EC explain how the rules under Commission Decision 2005/15/EC are implemented in 
consistent with the GPA?  Answer
 
Commission decision 2005/15/EC is implemented in full consistency with the EC's commitments 
under the GPA, and in particular its coverage under Annex 3 which refers to contracting authorities 
and public undertakings operating in the sectors of  drinking water, electricity, ports, airports and 
urban transports within the meaning of the relevant EC directive. 
 
Question 17 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 99, page 67 
Please describe what measures the Commission and the Member states have taken in order to improve 
the ratio of advertisement of procurement?  
Answer:
 
The volume of procurement advertised in the Officia l Journal of the EU has almost tripled since 1993. 
In 1994, it amounted to 1,31% of EU GDP, and in 2006 to 3,28% of EU GDP. As far as contract award notices are concerned, the European Commissi on has set up an automatic system of reminders 
to EU contracting authorities so as to ensu re full compliance with the relevant publication 
obligations. In 2008, 85% of the notices of intend ed procurement were followed by a contract award 
notice.   
Question 18 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 101, page 67 
Could the EC elaborate on the difficulties in identif ying the nationality of successful suppliers/service 
providers?   Answer
 
Identifying the actual nationality of a firm is extremel y difficult as the structur e of its capital is not 
always known and the potential nationality of the bidder does not necessarily reflect the trade flow 
resulting from the contract award.   
The EC is currently considering how to implement the principles laid down in Regulation (EC) 
No 716/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on Community statistics 
on the structure and activity of foreign affiliat es  [Official Journal L 171 of 29.06.2007] and the 
Recommendations Manual on the Pr oduction of Foreign Affiliates Statistics in the area of public 
procurement (please refer to the following website http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_O FFPUB/KS-RA-07-002/EN/KS-RA-07-002-EN.PDF). 
 
(3) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING EXPORTS 
 Question 19 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 115, page 72 
(1) Developed country Members shall eliminat e their remaining scheduled export subsidy 
entitlements by the end of 2013. 
Please provide details about this future elimination schedule.  (2) The products eligible for export subsidies:  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 75 
 
 
  -1 After elimination of export subsidies, how will the number of agricultural producers and 
 the quantity of these products change?  Does the EC or individual EC Member countries have specific targets in terms of number of 
 agricultural producers and the quantity of produc ts that should be maintained or attained? 
 
 -2 Will there be other support measures to be neficiaries of export subsidies after the export 
 subsidy elimination?  -3 What kind of effect will the export subsidy elimination have on the agricultural producers? 
  When the agricultural producers continue thei r production, what kind of support is given? 
 Will a new subsidy package be introduced? 
 
(3) Is the EC considering to introduce a new subs idy system such as an export credit in place of 
the export subsidies after 2013?  
Answer
 
(1) The elimination of scheduled export subsidy commitments shall be effected on the basis of 
what will be agreed under the Doha Development Agenda (DDA).  (2)  1- Given the various influencing factors, it is difficu lt to give relevant predictions at this point as to 
how the number of agricultural producers and the quantities produced may change as a result of 
elimination of export subsidies. 
2- No, there are no specific targets in term s of number of agricultural producers nor product 
quantities to be maintained or attained. 3- The export subsidies that could be eliminat ed in 2013 following a DDA Agreement would not be 
replaced by other kinds of export subsidy measures.  
4- See reply to question 2 (1-). 
5- The EC would not be able to provide export s ubsidies to any products after 2013 if there is a DDA 
Agreement.  (3) Such support measures are not foreseen, as matters stand.  
(4) Measures Affecting Production and Trade 
 Question 20 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 163, page 85 
Does the EC provide any law or regulation in order to  ensure that the contents of trade secrets or 
undisclosed information will not become open to the publ ic in a criminal trial for trade secret or on 
undisclosed information theft? 
 
Answer
 
No such EC legislation exists. This i ssues falls under national procedural law. 
 
Question 21 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 163, page 85 
Does the United Kingdom provide an y provisions or measures in rele vant laws and regulations in 
order to ensure that the contents of trade secret s or undisclosed information will not become open to 
the public in a criminal trial for trade secret or undisclosed information theft? 
 
Answer  
There are no specific provision in this regard. 
 Question 22 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 189, page 90 
(1) Please clarify the major difference between Directive 2006/115 and Directive 92/100/EEC 
of 19 November 1992 related to rental and lending rights. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 76  
 
 (2) Please clarify the major difference between Di rective 2006/116 and Directive 93/98/EEC of 
29 October 1993 related to the terms of pr otection of copyrights and related rights. 
(3) Please explain future procedure and schedule of the proposed amendment to Directive 
2006/116/EC.  
 Answer
 
(1) The codification of the Directive was mainly  because the Directive has been amended by 
other later Directives.  As regards substantive ma tters, Articles 11 and 12 of the original Directive 
have been deleted because the term Directive 93/98/ EEC extended the applicable terms.  Article 7 on 
the reproduction right has been deleted as this has  been replaced and extended by Article 2 of the 
2001/29/EC Directive and also article 10(3) has been am ended to include the Berne "three step test".  
The Directive was also reorganised somewhat to ma ke it easier to read.  Full details of these changes 
can be seen in the Annexes to Directive 2006/115.  (2) Article 3(2) of Directive 93/98/EEC was amended by article 11 of Directive 2001/29. 
 
(3) The proposal for an amendment to Directi ve 2006/116/EC extending the term of protection 
for performers and sound recordings is currently be ing discussed in both the European Parliament 
and in Council. The procedure is set out in Art 251 of the EC Treaty. It is impossible to state at this 
time if and when the proposed amendment would be adopted. This depends on the success or not of 
the negotiations among the three European institutions.  
 
Question 23 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 191, page 90 
Does the list of "broadcasting organizations" includ e only linear services or does it also include non-
linear services?  Answer
 
It is not clear what "list" is being referred to.  Th e term referred to in Table III.14 applies to various 
rights for broadcasting organisations  and it is possible that these rights would relate to non-linear as 
well as linear services, especially with regard to  the making available right.  The terminology of 
linear/non linear is usually used in relation to me dia law (the Audiovisual Services Directive) rather 
than copyright law however.  
 
Question 24 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 191, page 91 
Japan would like to ask about the current status and the future direction of industrial recovery 
programs for fair competition among content and abou t development measures for content businesses, 
including protection measures such as pe nalty for copyright infringement.   
 
Answer  
It is not clear what the question is referri ng to. However, regarding penalty for copyright 
infringement there is a proposal for criminal meas ures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of IPR in 
discussion before the Council.  
 
Question 25 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 193, page 91 
Please could you provide us with information on the current discussion at the EC concerning 
reinforcement of the protection of broadcasting organisations to complement WIPO's discussion? 
 
Answer  
There are no current formal discussions in the EC in relation to this matter. 
 
Question 26 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 197-204, page 93  
Japan believes that Internet piracy has become an  important issue increasingly all over the world. To 
combat Internet piracy, France, UK and other member countries has been recently considering  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 77 
 
 
 introducing the cooperation mechanism between ISPs and right holders, such as "gradually- response 
law". We would like to know how the EC consid ers harmonizing these countries' actions. In this 
context, please let us know whether or not the EU considers making rules to choose law and jurisdiction applicable to copyright infringement, especially on the internet 
 Answer
 
There is no current discussion nor proposal in the EC specifically related to this matter: 
harmonisation of national initiatives. However, there is  already in place a Directive (2004/48/EC) for 
the civil enforcement of IPR which should al so be considered in the internet area.  
 
IV. TRADE POLICY BY SECTOR (1) Introduction  Question 27 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 2, page 96 
(1) Could the EC explain the impact of the measures revised by the HC on the actual distribution of 
direct payments which appears to be in favor of a small number of large size farmers? In addition, 
could the EC also explain the perspectives on a disparity of direct payment distribution between NMS, or between sectors? 
(2) Japan is concerned that current payments could not eliminate the gap of support level between 
NMS and EU-15, and the one between sectors, neve rtheless they based on historical payments. 
Could the EC explain how these issues will be solved? 
(3) Could the EC explain the effect by the introduction of decoupled payments on agricultural 
structure including cultivated production, farmer’s income and the price of eligible crops? In the 
case that changes in production were caused, decoupl ed payments is not likely to be categorized 
as Green Box.  
(4) How do you explain to taxpayers the fact that the farmer who does not produce any crops can 
receive direct payments? 
(5) Could the EC show us the following data in each MS. 
1. Agricultural budget, Farm income, Gross farm income, 2. Ratio of subsidies and total amount of direct payments in these three data above 
(6) The report of Secretariat states, "At the same time, product-specific support linked to production 
and/or prices, still exists." Could the EC provide  the detailed information on this support such as 
eligible products, types of s upport and the amount of budgets? 
(7) Japan is concerned that the gap of support leve l in direct payments between MS and NMS would 
mean to stimulate the production in the NMS. C ould the EC provide with explanations of this? 
 
Answer
 
(1) There is no intention or effect of "favouring a small number of large farms". Article 28(1) of 
Regulation 73/2009 aims only at reducing administ rative costs of direct payments, via an exclusion 
from direct payments of very small farms for which the administrative costs of the system are much 
higher than the payment to be granted to the farmer.  (2) [This is also an answer to the second sentence of (1) on the same issue]: the so-called "gap" 
is no more no less that the application, in all 27 MS a nd in all sectors, of similar historical criteria for 
the calculation of the 27 national budgetary envelopes for the direct payments.  (3) The EU direct payments are income s upport payments decoupled from production and 
therefore do not, as such, have an impact on production choices of farmers.  The introduction of such 
decoupled income support, compatible with the Gr een Box, went hand-in-hand with the abolishment 
of so far coupled aid payments.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 78  
 
 (4) As enshrined in the Treaty establishing the European Community, one of  the objectives of the 
Common Agricultural Policy is "to ensure a fair stan dard of living for the agricultural community, in 
particular by increasing the individual earn ings of persons engaged in agriculture". 
 (5) Any available information can be fo und at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu 
 
(6) Please refer to the EC 2009 budget website: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/budget/data/D2009_VOL4/EN /nmc-titleN123A5/nm c-chapterN50452281343-
265/index.html#N50452281343-265. A ll detailed information on 'direct aids' (chapter 0503) can be 
found there. Chapter 050301 covers decoupled pay ment, and chapter 050302 covers coupled aid. 
 
(7) Direct payment are decoupled payme nts, there is no impact on production. 
 (2) Agriculture and Related Activities  
Question 28 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 9, page 98 The EC states that the domestic support regimes fo r bananas and cotton have also been changed. 
Could the EC provide the detailed information on how the domestic support regime for cotton has 
been reformed? 
 
Answer
 
In 2004 a reform of the EU cotton regime was adopted, establishing a crop specific payment per 
hectare of cotton, while providing support und er the Single Payment Scheme, which is decoupled 
from production. A certain amount of  partially coupled support is necessary to respect the EU's 
constitutional-type requirements, i.e. the protocol  of the Greek accession treaty, which requires a 
support system for cotton production in certai n areas. The reform applied from 2006. 
On 7 September 2006, the European Court of Justi ce annulled the reform. In its ruling, the Court did 
not question the nature of the reform, but it di d query the way it was prepared and adopted. In 
particular, the Court ruled that in the adoption process insufficient  consideration had been given to 
the labour costs linked to cotton growing and to the viability of the ginning industry following the 
reform. The Court furthermore ruled that the 2004 regime should continue to apply until a new regulation was adopted "within a reasonable time". 
On the basis of an extensive Impact Assessmen t and several studies on the economic, social and 
environmental aspects of the EU cotton prod uction, the European Commission presented a new 
reform proposal on 9 November 2007. This proposal ma intained the introduction of a crop specific 
payment per hectare of cotton, for a maximum numb er of hectares per Member State, as agreed by the 
Council in 2004. 
In June 2008, the Council agreed on this reform, red ucing the maximum base area for which aid may 
be paid to 250.000 ha in Greece, 48.000 ha in Sp ain, and 3.342 and 360 hectares in Bulgaria and 
Portugal respectively. In case the production area is  higher than the national base area, the aid per 
hectare is decreased proportionally. The new reform will apply from 2009. In addition, the reform contains a restructuring fu nd for Greece and Spain. With this restructuring 
fund, these Member States may finance five different types of measures: (1) dismantling of ginning 
plants, (2) investments in ginning plants, (3) participation of farmers in quality schemes, 
(4) information and promotion activities, (5) aid to harvest machinery cont ractors affected by 
dismantling of plants. Member States had to submit four year programmes by 1 January 2009.  Question 29 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 14, page 101 
The EC states that the EC’s commitments with r espect to agricultural mark et access, domestic support 
and export subsidies, reflecting the enlargement from 12 to 27 Member States have not yet been 
formally agreed in the WTO and consolidated in th e EC’s Schedule. Could the EC explain the current 
status of this process? When does the EC expect th at this commitment is agreed in the WTO and that 
the EC’s Schedule is consolidated?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 79 
 
 
 Answer  
The EU has been seeking certification of its CXL schedule for years. The question should be addressed to the four Members that still mainta in a reservation. The EU has given all the 
explanations required and since there is no substan tive reason for such reserv ations, it is confident 
they shall be quickly lifted. 
 
Question30 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 15, page 102 
(1) Could the EC provide the detailed information on the Leader+ support? In addition, Japan notes 
that the EC recently made the notification on do mestic support for marketing years 2004/2005 and 
2005/2006 to the Committee on Agriculture (G/AG/N/EEC/59). Could the EC also indicate how 
this support was classified in this notification, as well as the reason for this? 
(2) Furthermore, if Leader+ support is notified to  the Committee on Agriculture (G/AG/N/EEC/59), 
could the EC explain whether or not the subsidy by each the EC member country is included, and 
what will be the amount of these subsidies? 
 
Answer
 
(1) Leader support was notified according to applicable criteria of Annex 2 AoA. (2) Member State shares also in Leader support are included in the EC's domestic support 
notifications.  Question 31 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 17, page 102 
Why did the EC reduce the number of tariff lines th at require import licenses? What are/will be the 
impacts of this reduction on production and trad e of these products? How does the EC compensate the 
domestic producers?  
Answer
 
As regards the imports of agric ultural products, the reduction of the list of products subject to 
presentation of an import licence has been justified by  the fact that, for a wide range of products, 
information on import flows needed for the m onitoring of the markets are provided by TAXUD 
surveillance system and through EUROSTAT and CO MEXT database within a reasonable delay. 
Therefore, it was possible to simplify the regi me applicable to imports and to alleviate the 
administrative burden for Member States and opera tors. This simplification has no impact on 
production and trade, except that the administrative burden will be alleviated for the operators. 
There is no reason for "compensating the domestic producers". 
 
Question 32 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 19, page 103 
(1) What is the flat rate of decoupled payments  in each Member States calculated based on both 
historical model and regional model after the CAP Health Check? 
(2) Japan noted that partly coupled payments still ha ve been retaining in the transitional period to 
decoupled payments, while the set-aside obliga tion has been abolished in the Health Check. 
Therefore, the direct payments in this transiti onal period are not likely to be categorized as Blue 
Box which requires production-limiting. Could th e EC indicate how the payments would be 
categorized in the notification to the Committe e on agriculture, as well as the reason for this? 
 
Answer  
(1) The provisions of the CAP Health Check rel ated to the options for progressively approximate 
("flatten") the unit value of payment entitlements w ill apply from 1 January 2010, on the basis of 
decisions to be taken by Member States by 1 August 2009. It is therefore too early to assess what will 
be the outcome of the Health Check in terms of flatter rates. 
 (2) The EC's production-limiting direct payments for ar able aid will, for the time of their further 
existence, be notified in the Blue Box. The arable aid direct payments comply with Article 6.5 of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture as the payments are based on fixed area and yield. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 80  
 
 Question 33 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 20, page 103 
(1) What part of cross compliance procedures were simplified on the "Health Check?" 
(2) Could the EC specify the standards in the phrase "will be simplified, by withdrawing standards"? 
Regarding the phrase "water management will be introduced", what is the difference between 
amended water management and existing rules?  
(3) Japan noted that cross co mpliances were readjusted based on the farmer’s criticism that insists too 
severe and complicated. About which does the EC think they criticise so in these compliances? 
(4) Could the EC provide the detailed information on the managing and monitoring system of the 
cross compliance in member states? Particularly Japan is interested in who and how operates this system?  
(5) How do the member states inform the detail of th e cross compliance to their farmers? (Japan is 
concerned that some farmers do not comply it because of their shortage of understanding.) 
(6) Are any disciplines which require the reduction of pa yments or the fine to the farmers who do not 
comply cross compliances provided in the relevant regulation? If so, what is the amount of that? 
 Answer
 
(1) The scope of cross compliance (statutory management requirements -SMR- and good agricultural and environmental condition -GAEC-) was modified to better target it to farming activity 
and farmers responsibility. Certain provisions fo r the management of cross compliance were 
harmonised between Pillar I and Pillar II of the Common Agricultural Policy.  
 
(2) The list of statutory management requireme nts was modified with the withdrawal of  
- Council Directive 79/409/EEC: Article 3( a), (c) and (d) and Article 5(c) 
- Council Directive 92/43/EEC: Article  13(1)(b) and (2) and Article 15 
- Council Regulation (EC) No 2629/97  - Council Directive 96/22/EC: Article 3(c) 
 
Regarding the phrase "water management will be introduced": Two new GAEC standards were 
introduced:   (a) establishment of buffer strips along courses and   (b) where use of water for irrigation is s ubject to authorisation, compliance with  
  authorisation procedures. There was no GAEC standard on water management  
  before the Health Check. 
 (3) The question is not fully understood. Cross compliance was readjusted following a careful 
review of the scheme in the context of an Impact Assessment. Requests from farmers were of course taken into account in this exercise as well as other stakeholders contributions. 
 
(4) The sources of information on this issue are numerous: notifications from Member States, 
evaluation studies, audit reports, etc. The Commissi on keeps at disposal of any interested party the 
available information but the request should be specified.   (5) Pursuant to Article 4(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 73/2009 Member States have the 
obligation to provide the farmers with the lis t of statutory management requirements and the good 
agricultural and environmental condition to be respected.   (6) Details of the system of reductions for non- compliance are laid down in Articles 65, 66 and 
67 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 796/2004.  
 
Question 34 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 21, page 103 
Could the EC indicate how the "direct payments for environmental measures or for improving the 
quality and marketing of agricultural products" in Me mber States have been classified in the current 
notification to the Committee on Agriculture, as well as the reason for this?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 81 
 
 
 In addition, Japan thinks the payments with accord ing to the Article 68 scheme would be classified as 
AMS, as this budget would be used for specific products and stimulates production of them. What is the reason why the program which has been implemented under 2nd pillar as far would be 
implemented under the 1st pillar?  Answer
 
As indicated in paragraph 21 of the WTO Secretariat report, the payments will be notified to the WTO 
as Green Box when they are in conformity with A nnex 2 AoA. They will be not ified as Blue Box when 
they are in conformity with Article 6.5 AoA. Otherwise they will be notified as Amber support. 
 
Question 35 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 25, page 104 
(1) What is the difference between the Refe rence Price and the Intervention Price? 
(2) What do they based on and how decided? 
 
Answer  
(1) According to Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 (Single CMO Regulation), the intervention price 
means the price at which products shall be bought into public intervention. The intervention price is 
calculated in relation to the reference price, but differently for each market sector. Thus, according to 
the type of product, it may be equal to, a percentage of, or within certain limits set as a percentage of 
the reference price for the respective sector. The way the intervention price is calculated is described 
in Subsection III of R. (EC) No. 1234/2007.  
 
(2) The reference prices for the products subject  to the intervention measures are set up in 
Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2007. 
 
Question 36 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 26, page 104 
(1) How the amount of direct payments would be after abolishing set- aside obligation? 
(2) We are afraid that abolishing set-aside obligation might cause reduction of energy crop 
production consequently negatively affect to bio- fuel production while overproduction of arable 
crops. What do you think the effect of abolishing compulsory set-aside? 
(3) Could the farmers receive set-aside entitlements voluntary basis, after abolishing the compulsory 
set-aside? 
 
Answer  
(1) The amounts of direct payments, i.e. the unit value of payment entitlements, are not modified  (2) Given the total abolishment of the support to arable crops, it is not anymore appropriate to 
maintain the set-aside obligation that was c onceived as an instrument to counter-balance the 
incentive on production resulting from the arable crops scheme.  (3) All payment entitlements, including payment entitlements related to the set-aside obligation 
during the 2000-2002 reference period, have been allocated during the first year of implementation of the Single Payment Scheme. The question seems therefore somehow irrelevant. 
 
Question 37 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 28, page 105 
(1) With regard to the effect of retaining partly  coupled payments to the income stability of 
beneficiaries, could the EC explain the result of assessment? 
(2) The EC states that farmers producing durum wheat in Italy, Greece, Spain, France, Portugal and 
Austria receive crop-specific aid of 40euro/ha.  Could the EC explain the reason why the crop-
specific payment to only durum wheat is carried out? 
(3) In addition, Could the EC also indicate how this payment will be classified in the notification to 
the Committee on Agriculture, as well as the reason for this? 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 82  
 
 Answer
 
(1) The 2003 reform gave the possibility to MS to  keep coupled payments in some sectors to 
avoid risks of abandonment of productio n, lack of raw material supply fo r processing industries, or to 
avoid social and environmental problems in areas w ith few economic alternatives. The Health Check 
has extended the degree of decoupling. In less pr oblematic sectors such as arable crops, hops and 
olive oil, full decoupling applies from 2010. In ot hers such as beef, rice, nuts seeds, protein and 
starch it will start in 2012. Nevertheless, it lea ves MS the possibility to keep coupled support for 
suckler cows and sheep meat where  decoupling can have a strong impact in farmers' margins leading 
to economic and environmental impacts in areas where few or no economic alternatives exist.   
The Impact Assessment of the He alth Check showed that decoupling could lead to reduction, 
abandonment or change of production in areas with lo w farm margins, such as in suckler cows and 
sheep for meat. FADN simulations shows that 33% of  specialised suckler cows holdings in Austria, 
21% in France and 17% in Spain could not cover their variable costs and hence could abandon production. A similar situation would occur to 19% of French sheep meat fa rmers. Decoupling could 
lead as well to impacts in processing, except for re gions that depend to a large extent on extensive 
livestock systems. The reduction of production in some areas may have negat ive repercussions for the 
processing industry (and consequently on local em ployment) which depend on a minimum quantity of 
supply. Benefits from extensive livestock systems in fragile and normally environmentally of high 
value regions at risk: biodiversity, landscape and forest fire protection. 
 
(2) In order to maintain the role of durum wh eat production in traditional production area while 
strengthening the granting of the aid to durum wheat respecting certain minimum quality 
requirements, it was appropriate in the reform in CAP reform in 2003 to reduce, over a transitional 
period, the current specific supplement for durum  wheat in traditional areas and to abolish the 
special aid in established areas. Only cultivation which produces durum wheat suitable for use in the 
manufacture of semolina and pasta pro ducts was eligible for that aid. This aid will now be decoupled 
from 2010 with the Health Check proposals and be con sequently integrated into the Single payment 
Scheme. 
 
(3) This has been notified as Blue Box payment  as the support is based on fixed areas and fixed 
yields. 
 
Question 38 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 30, page 105 
What will be the impacts of abolishing the "energy crop premium" on the production and 
import/export of oilseeds in each Member States? Is the EC considering to review and resume the 
programme with reference to production prospects in  other states – especially the US and Brazil – as 
well as trends of food supply in the Member States? 
 
Answer  
Growing energy crops is not only driven by specific  support such as the energy crop aid, thus the 
impact of the abolishment of the "energy crop premiu m" on EU production and trade is expected to be 
limited. Even if no specific support for bioenergy produc tion will be provided within the first pillar of 
the CAP, biomass production in EU will continue to  grow stimulated by strong demand due to the 
political targets set for bio-energy consumption. 
 
An external evaluation financed by DG Agriculture has concluded that the support to the cultivation 
of non food crops (mostly for energy uses) provid ed through the non food set-aside and the energy 
crop regime has played an important role in the "sta rt-up" phase of the development of the bio-fuels 
supply chains in the EU, when the installed bio-fuels production capacity was still limited and the 
support granted to the downstream levels of th e supply chains by non-CAP measures at EU and 
Member State level was not yet substantial.  
 
According to the most recent update of the EU  perspective  agricultural markets and income ( 
2007-2015) medium-term market perspectives for the EU oilseed sector are foreseen to be supported 
by the increasing demand for biodiesel in the EU and the perspectives projected for world markets  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 83 
 
 
 (driven by the rising demand for oilseed meal  and vegetable oil). With rather stable oilseed 
production projected over the next 7 years, the EU will continue to remain a large net importer of 
oilseeds over the medium term (see table). 
Total oilseed market balance in the European Union, 2006-2015 
(mio t) 
 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 
Usable production 22,5 22,2 25,1 24,6 24,5 24,5 24,4 24,6 24,9 24,8 
of which  EU-15 14,6 15,1 15,4 15,4 15,3 15,4 15,3 15,4 15,6 15,6 
 EU 10 4,7 5,4 6,1 5,8 5,8 5,8 5,8 5,9 6,0 6,0 
 EU-2 3,3 1,7 3,6 3,3 3,3 3,3 3,3 3,3 3,3 3,3 
Consumption 38,6 39,2 42,5 41,2 41,5 42,6 43,1 43,6 44,3 45,1 
of which EU-15 33,2 34,3 36,4 35,4 35,7 36,8 37,3 37,8 38,4 39,1 
 EU-10 3,4 3,8 4,5 4,3 4,3 4,3 4,3 4,3 4,3 4,4 
 EU-2 2,0 1,1 1,6 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,5 1,6 1,6 
Imports 16,1 18,0 19,0 17,3 18,0 19,2 19,6 20,1 20,5 21,3 
Exports 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 0,9 
Beginning stocks 8,7 7,7 7,8 8,5 8,2 8,3 8,5 8,6 8,7 8,9 
Ending stocks 7,7 7,8 8,5 8,2 8,3 8,5 8,6 8,7 8,9 9,0 
EU-10: Member States that joined the European Union on May, 1st 2004. 
EU-2: Bulgaria and Romania. 
Source: DG AGRI. 
 
Question 39 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 31, page 106 
What are the impacts of the sugar policy reforms, which make the EC a net-importer, on the tariff 
quota administrations in each Member state as well as on the global and intra trade? 
 
Answer  
The EC became a net-importer in 2006/07 due to the significant reduction of its exports. From 
October 2009, preferential imports from least d eveloped countries and African Caribbean and Pacific 
countries will enjoy duty and quota-free access, enhanc ing the EU net-importer situation. Concerning 
import management, from Octob er 2009 EU traditional refiners will cease to have a privileged access 
to imported raw sugar, except during the first 3 m onths of each marketing year. Beet processing 
industries or new refineries will be entitled to pr ocess imported raw sugar. In Southern Europe new 
refineries are under construction. On the world market the change of EU into a net-importer 
contributed to some extent to the increase of white sugar prices. As regards internal trade new trade 
flows would probably develop from surplus areas (Western and certain parts of Central Europe) to 
deficit areas (Northern and Southern Europe). 
 
Question 40 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 35, page 107 
How does/will the EC compensate those who stopped their sugar production as a result of the reform? 
Which crops production the EC planning to sup port in replacement of the sugar production? 
 
Answer  
For the 2006-2009 period, a restru cturing fund has been set up. Th e fund delivered financial support 
to the companies which renounced part  or the totality of their quota for the production of sugar. Part 
of the aid is given to the beet growers who committed themselves to stop delivering beets to the 
company. The fund is supplied with  levies from the EU sugar producers. The aim was to encourage 
the less competitive industries to stop producing su gar. 5,8 million tonnes (nearly one third of EU 
production) of quotas have been renounced within th e restructuring process. In Member States where 
more than 50% of quotas were renounced, the fund  delivers support for diversification purposes in 
the regions affected by factory closures. 
 
Question 41 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 43, page 109 
(1) Did the EC terminate the milk production quotas b ecause of the rise in internal and external 
demand for dairy products and, of  little risk of overproduction?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 84  
 
 (2) What will be the impact abolishing these quotas on in each Member States, as for the 
production and trade of daily product?  
(3) What is the reason for prohibiting transfers of  national milk quotas between Member States? 
(4) Export subsidies for dairy products were reinst ated in January 2009. Could the EC describe  
details of the reinstatement and the reasons for such decision? 
 
Answer
 
(1) The EU will gradually increase milk quota from  2009 until 2013 with a view to their end in 
2015. The objective is to make the quota less rest rictive and that farmers will base their production 
decisions more and more on the market situation a nd not on the basis of their quota level.  
 
(2) The results of the anal ysis per Member State can be found on the site below 
http://idei.fr/doc/by/requillart/report_idei_5.pdf.  (3) It was decided in 1984 that quotas were est ablished per Member State. The quota was based 
for each Member State on the milk production of  the Member State for a reference period. 
Furthermore, the liability of the levy was fixed per Member State.  Therefore, the scheme cannot allow 
any transfer across borders due to such construction of the scheme. In 1984 it was estimated that this 
would guarantee a certain production in each Member State. That reason is still valid.  
(4) The EC reintroduced export subsidies as a result of the bad market situation with prices 
falling up to 60%, a result from shrinking demand, and, contrary to the situation in the EU, dairy 
production increases in certain competing exporting third countries. The decrease in world market 
prices could already be noted months before the introduction of export refunds which are deliberately 
set at a level which does not fully bridge the gap between EU prices and prices on the world market. 
 
Question 42 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 44, page 109 
Why did the EC reduce or abolish subsidies for the industrial or feed use of  dairy products? What are 
the impacts of this reduction or abolition on their production and trade?  
Answer
 
(1) The intervention prices for butter and SMP were reduced in the CAP reform of 2003 by 25 % 
and 15 % respectively. Initially, the intervention pr ice for butter was around 300 euro/100kg and the 
subsidy was 80 euro/100kg. The bakeries and ice cream factories that bought the butter paid 
therefore a net price of 220 euro/100kg. After th e 2003 reform the intervention price was reduced to 
220 euro/100kg. i.e no need to keep the di sposal subsidy. The same for SMP. 
 (2) Although we have no statistics (anymore) on subs idised use of butter, there are reports of 
small reductions, mainly for ice cream use. For SM P there are reports of strong reductions in use of 
SMP in the veal industry. A large part of the reducti ons are also due to the strong increase in prices 
in 2007 and 2008. Demand may how ever come back again as prices are currently very low. Export 
volumes of butter in 2008 were more than 30% lower than in 2007 and the 2008 exports of SMP were 
12% below 2007 volumes. 
 
Question 43 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 47, page 110 
(1) With regard to the fruits and vegetables sector integrated into the Single Payment Scheme, how 
do you calculate the unit price of the payment?   
(2) In addition, the payment during a transition period of five years is likely to be classified as AMS, 
as this paragraph states "no longer linked to pr oduction but to the cultivated area." Could the EC 
indicate how this payment will be classified in  the notification to the Committee on Agriculture, 
as well as the reason for this? If this payment will be classified as AMS, will the total AMS 
increase?  
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 85 
 
 
 Answer  
(1) The methodology to establish the value of th e payment entitlements is fixed in Annex VII, 
point M, of EC Regulation1782/2003. Member State shall determine the global additional amount to be included in the SPS reference amount of each  concerned farmer on the basis of objective and non-
discriminatory criteria during a reference period. Then  they shall, for each farmer, calculate the 
additional number of ha related to the additional global amount, i.e. the number of additional 
payment entitlements to be granted to each farm er. These 2 figures (additional amount and additional 
number of ha) per farmers are added to the initial fi gures calculated before the integration in the 
SPS, resulting in a new (higher) reference am ount and a new (higher) number of payment 
entitlements, all the entitlements having a single new value. 
 
(2) The optional transitional fruit and veget ables payments established in Article 68b of 
R.1782/2003 are described in Chapter 10g of Title IV of this Regulation, Articles 110t and 110u. 
Being based on fixed areas and yields the payments will be included in the Blue Box of the EC's 
Domestic Support notifications. 
 
Question 44 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 48, page 110 
We understand that one of the purposes of some of  the fruits and vegetable sector reforms was to 
enhance the competitiveness of producers against pow erful demand-side. Could the EC explain the 
reason why the market withdrawal could not  contribute to this competitiveness?  
 Answer
 
Experience has shown that producer organisations (P O) are the proper tool for strengthening the 
position of producers in the market. The EU financial support under the Common Market 
Organisation (CMO) for fruit and vegetables is th erefore addressed to grouped producers and may be 
granted to producer organisations  implementing an operational progr amme (OP). Expenditure under 
the OP is for 50% (up to 60% under certain circu mstances) financed by the Community limited to 
4,1% (with possibility to increase to 4.6% if the excess is used for crisis prevention and management 
measures) of the value of the marketed production of each PO. 
Many different activities may be eligible for fi nancing under an operational programme as long as 
they fulfil the conditions set by the CMO and its obj ectives, including measures linked to the planning 
of production, improvement of product quality, boosti ng the commercial value of products, promotion 
of the products, environmental meas ures and crisis prevention and management.  
The Commission is committed to present to the European Parliament and the Council a report on 
producer organisations and operationa l funds by 31 December 2013, on the basis of the annual 
reports and final reports (f or the final year of implementation of an operational programme) that POs 
submit to the Member States. Information concerning the monitoring activities is integrated in each 
annual report, including financial, output, and result indicators. Mo reover the POs submit a mid-term 
evaluation report aiming at examining the degree of  utilisation of financial resources, the efficiency 
and the effectiveness of the operational programme. 
 
Question 45 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraphs 97-98, page 129 
Regarding the EC’s customs practice on certain in formation technology products covered by the 
Information Technology Agreement (ITA), Japan, toge ther with U.S. and Chinese Taipei, has brought 
a case to the Dispute Settlement Bodies (DSB).  Though understanding specific legal issues should be 
dealt with under the DSB procedures, Japan would like to have some clarification on the policy issues 
related to the ITA. 1. The ITA established in 1996 has been prom oting the development of the information 
technology, and thus contributing to industrial and social developments, by encouraging IT industries 
to product more sophisticated produc ts covered by the ITA or add functions to such products.  Most 
ITA members impose no tariffs on such products, wh ich Japan finds appropriate in light of the 
objective and purpose of the ITA.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 86  
 
 2. In this regard, Japan is concerned that the EC does impose tariffs on imports of such 
sophisticated products or those with additiona l functions by classifying them as non-ITA products 
under the EC’s customs law.  It is Japan’s view that such EC’s unilateral reclassifications of ITA 
products into non-ITA products is the restoration of trade barriers on ITA products, which the ITA 
members once decided to eliminate, and thus resu lts in the impediment of information technology 
development. 
 As for the above, Japan would like to ask the following questions: (a) The EC imposes (or plans to impose) duties on several IT products, including Digital Multi-
functional Machines, Flat Panel Displays for Com puters, Set-Top-Boxes and Mobile phones with TV 
or GPS functions, by changing their customs classifi cations because of their multi-functionalities.  
(b) As stated above, Japan understands that th e EC’s impositions of duties on technologically 
developed products covered by the ITA will cause a serious problem. Japan considers that a unilateral 
decision of an ITA member to exclude such technologically developed products from the ITA 
coverage, if were left unsolved, will adversely affect the foundation of the ITA In this sense, Japan 
would like to ask the position of the EC on this problem.   
 
Answer
 
The EC acknowledges the differences of positions – bo th on points of law and policy - that have lead 
to the ITA dispute between the EC and Japan (DS376). These issues, however, are now before the 
panel to be decided. The EC rejects claims t hat it is not fulfilling its obligations under the 1996 
Information Technology Agreement (ITA). The ITA po ses a systemic challenge, which is a direct 
result of the irreconcilability of the ITA specific product-based approach and the rapid evolution in 
the IT industry. In our view this can only be  addressed by revisiting the product coverage of the 
Agreement through negotiation between all ITA signatori es – as provided for in the Agreement itself. 
Much to our regret, Japan decided for the litigation route instead. The proposal to update and expand 
the ITA which the EC presented this Fall, is s till on the table.The EC hopes that other WTO members 
will engage in discussions in the near future.  
 
Question 46 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 94-99, page128-129 
In connection with the reference of High-technology products, Japan has one concern, which is the 
review of the tariff classification for multifunctional m obile phones.  In this respect, Japan would like 
to know more about current discussion and its prospect. 
 
Answer  
The EC has not introduced any changes to its cl assification of multi-func tional mobile phones and 
will in any case live up to all its WTO commitments. 
 
(5) SERVICES 
 Question 47 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 113, page 134 
The Government of Japan expects early entry into force of the conclusion by the EC25 member states 
(the consolidated schedule contained in documen ts S/C/W/273 and S/C/W/273/Suppl.1). We would 
like to know the progress of the procedure by the each member. 
 
Answer
 
So far, 14 EU Member States out of the 25 concerned  completed their national ratification procedures 
(Austria, Germany, Denmark, Hungary, Greece, La tvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, 
Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the UK). 
Subject to their respective constitutional requirem ents, those EU Member States, whose national 
ratification procedures are not yet completed, are doi ng their outmost to comple te such procedures as 
soon as possible. Additionally, also with a view  to further accelerate to national ratification 
procedures, the European Commission requested an opinion from the European Court of Justice,  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 87 
 
 
 aimed at clarifying, among other issues, whether such national ratification by the EU Member States 
is really necessary.  All these extensive efforts by the EU Member States and by the European Commission are in line with 
the relevant provisions of the letters sent to the affected WTO member s, under which the EC 
endeavoured to accelerate the internal appr oval procedures as much as possible.   
 
Question 48 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph113, page 134 
The WTO secretariat report describes that under th e GATS, the EC scheduled commitments across 
virtually all major service categories. We would like to know whether the EC recogniz es Audiovisual services as one of the major 
categories. 
 
Answer
 
The EC would like to highlight the dual aspect of audiovisual services which have both an economic and a cultural nature, as they convey identities, va lues and meaning. This is why the EC considers 
that these should be treated specifically and does not favour the scheduling of commitments in this 
sector.  
 
Question 49 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 119, page 136  
Is the new draft regulation, requiring credit rating companies outside the EU to establish a subsidiary 
within the EU territories, consistent with GA TS obligation for all the EU member countries? 
 
Answer
 
This proposal is still under considera tion and consultations are being held at various levels within the 
EC. Nothing has as yet been finalised, but, as always, we are mindful of our international obligations.  Question 50 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraphs 138, pages 144 
Given a major competition in the fixed phone market in EU is based on a carrier-preselection, Japan 
would like to know EC’s approach to promote the competition in the market based on a carrier-
selection.  
Answer
 
Under the existing regulatory framework, the power granted to the national regulatory authority (NRA) to impose carrier selection or carrier pre- selection is identical: carrier selection and carrier 
pre-selection can be imposed by the NRA as a result of the market analysis if the relevant retail 
market is not effectively competitive, and if the obli gations imposed at wholesale level have not been 
sufficient to achieve the objectives of the regulatory framework.    In the existing framework, ca rrier selection and carrier pre-selec tion have been included in the 
Universal Service Directive 2002/22/EC in order to facilitate the transition from the old regulatory 
framework of 1998 to the 2002 framework. This tr ansition has been completed; therefore in the 
review of the regulatory framewo rk currently under way it has been proposed to allow the imposition 
of carrier pre-selection and carrier selection via the Access Directive 2002/19/EC as access 
obligations are more appropriately handled under this  Directive. This change is of technical nature 
and does not fundamentally change the regulatory approach towards carrier selection and carrier 
pre-selection.  Question 51 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 139, page 144 
Japan is concerned that EU operators in its re gion may take unfair and discriminatory approaches 
against providers outside EU member countries, un der the new regulation for international roaming 
adopted in July 2007. Japan would like to know whether or not the EC have taken any appropriate 
preventive measures against such problem or have such plan in the future.  
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 88  
 
 Answer
 
The EU Roaming Regulation adopted in July 2007 is an internal market instrument and, as such, can 
only apply within the EU for intra-community roami ng services. However, the re is nothing to prevent 
operators from the EU and third countries from  negotiating wholesale roaming rates on a 
commercial basis so as to extend the benefits of the EU roaming regulation when travelling to and 
from these countries; the Commission woul d very much welcome such an approach. 
The price caps introduced in the EU Roaming Re gulation are not cost or iented, they are maximum 
limits which leave sufficient margin for competition to  develop below the caps. This is why it is not 
expected that operators will raise its roaming pr ices in other countries outside the EU for 
compensating the price reductions for intra-community roaming. Th e data gathered by the European 
Regulators Group that is available to the Commission does not indicate that the adoption of the EU 
Roaming regulation has had a negative impact on th ird country operators. In particular, the prices 
that consumers pay for roaming services outside th e EU do not appear to have been significantly 
modified. Any Commission intervention regarding inte rnational roaming prices does not appear to be 
appropriate, but the Commission will continue to  monitor the developments in these prices. 
 
Question 52 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 139, page 144 
Japan welcomes the recent German announcemen t that Deutsche Telekom will open the VDSL 
network to other providers in the same industry.  Japan believes that unbundling regulations for new 
generation network, such as optical fibre, is necess arily important in order to maintain appropriate 
competition environment. In this regard, Japan would like to know how EU member countries are 
reviewing such optical fibre after receiving the recommendation proposal to regulate "next generation 
access broadband network" in September 2008.  
 
Answer  
It shall be noted that the Commission is working on a Recommendation on regulated access to new 
generation access networks (NGAs). Following the publication of our draft Recommendation on 
regulated access to NGAs, in autumn 2008 a public  consultation was launched. The consultation 
closed on 14 November 2008.  
 
The Commission received 75 submissions from a co mprehensive set of interested parties. Submitting 
parties include all major firms of the EU electroni c communications sector (e.g. Telefonica, Deutsche 
Telekom and Vodafone); many new entrants (e.g. Wi nd, Fastweb, NetCologne); the cable sector (e.g. 
Ono; Virgin Media and NL Kabel); trade associ ations (e.g. ECTA, ETNO, Cable Europe, VATM, 
Aforst); equipment manufacturers (e.g. Ericsson,  Cisco and Nokia Siemens Networks); the ERG, 
several national regulators and EU Member States'  governments; as well as Google, energy 
companies, regional authorities, business user groups and individuals. The responses thus cover a 
fairly comprehensive range of views.  
 
The Commission is currently in the process of review ing the first draft taking due account of the 
submissions and comments received, but also of the most up-to-date technical studies and the most 
recent developments in the market. For instance the original draft Recommendation was based on the 
assumptions that GPON will be the technology of choice for fibre networks in the EU, and that GPON 
cannot be unbundled. These assumptions will need furt her scrutiny, as, first, in the Netherlands KPN 
is adopting P2P and it cannot be excluded that ot her operators will follow suit, and, second, there is 
evidence that Wave-Division-Multiplexing products (WDM) have already been brought to market and 
that GPON can thus be unbundled16.  
 In this context with the adoption of the final propos al scheduled for this yea r, the Commission clearly 
aims at ensuring an appropriate balance between both investment and competition imperatives, in 
which both passive and active remedies will have a role to play. 
                                                     
 
16 For instance, Nortel Networks has marketed such a product in September 2008, according to ECTA 
and Ofcom.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 89 
 
 
 It is also worth recalling that under the EU el ectronic communications Framework Member States 
are in charge of regulating their respective elect ronic communications markets, pursuant to common 
principles set out in the Framework. National authorities are however obliged to notify draft 
measures to the European Commission which can then issue comments and/or can veto such 
measures in exceptional cases (the so called Article 7 procedure). 
Since September 2008 the Commission services has recei ved a number of notifications from Member 
States reviewing the unbundling of local loops (in particular from Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, 
Cyprus, Denmark, Ireland, Austria and Finland) . In some of these countries fibre rollout has not 
started yet or is in a nascent phase.   
For a more detailed overview; it is worth noticing that: 
• In countries such as Austria and Cyprus , national authorities have concluded that 
fibre is not part of the relevant market and thus cannot be regulated;  
• In Spain point-to-multipoint fibre loops were excluded from the market and 
consequently not regulated; 
• In Denmark, the regulatory authority c oncluded that copper loops and fibre loops 
were not substitutable due to switching costs and thus cannot be regulated;  
• In Ireland and Portugal fibre loops were included in the market but the concrete 
terms of regulation will be defined in separate subsequent measures;  
• In the Netherlands (where fibre rollout is mainly based on point-to-point 
architectures) fibre loops we re proposed for regulation, and a whole set of 
regulatory obligations were imposed (a ccess, non-discrimination, transparency, 
price control and detailed mi gration arrangements); and 
• In Finland fibre loops were proposed for re gulation, but only obligations of access 
and non-discrimination are foreseen by the regulatory authority. 
 
Regarding the appreciation expressed by Japan for the recent announcement of Deutsche Telekom 
(DT) as regards the opening of its VDSL-network, attention must be drawn to the recently published 
staff working document accompanying the publicatio n of the 14th Implementation Report (Progress 
Report on the Single European Electronic Communi cations Market 2008 (14th Report) Final report 
2008 (COM(2009)140Final) - 24 March 2009, Staff Working document (SEC(2009) 376) Country 
chapter Germany), indicating that the Commissi on is following this issue closely.  
 Question 53 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 139, page 144 
Japan understands that the regulatory framework for telecommunications was adopted after the vote in 
European Parliament in September 2008. In te rms of a revision to this framework noted in 
Paragraph 141, Japan also understands that there is an ongoing discussion to continue regulating 
broadband services. In this regard, Japan woul d like to know the current circumstance of the 
discussion and a perspective of legitimizing the frameworks in European Commission. 
 
Answer
 
The next step for the EU Telecoms Package is now  a vote in second reading in the plenary of the 
European Parliament (expected for early April); in the meantime informal  "trilogue meetings" 
between European Parliament, Commission and Counc il are ongoing. The Reform of the EU Telecom 
Package is scheduled to be completed in J une 2009 with its adoption by the Council.  
 The adoption of the revised regulatory framework in  the Member States will depend on the speed of 
the legislative process there, but the Commission is hopeful that it could become effective from 2010. 
 
The process can be followed at:  http://ec.europa.eu/information_society /policy/ecomm/tomorro w/next/index_en.htm
 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindB yProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2007/0247  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 90  
 
 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindB yProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2007/0248
 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindB yProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2007/0249  
 Question 54 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 170, page 153 
There is a restriction that "Foreign lawyers" (w ho must be fully qualified in their home country) 
equity participation and shares in the operating result of any law firm may not exceed 25 per cent. 
They may not have decisive influence in decisi on-making." in Market Access column (Mode 3) of 
Legal Services sector, in EC's conditional revised  offer (TN/S/O/EEC/Rev.1, 29 June 2005). Would 
EC explain purposes and the grounds of the restriction?  Answer
 
This issue, which falls outside the scope of Trade Policy Review, is to  be addressed in the framework of 
services negotiations under the DDA.  
 
Question 55 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 172,174,176, page 154 
The Secretariat report stipulates that part of members of EC applies the maximum price on several 
legal professions. Would EC explain the purpose and the grounds of the restriction? (Japan 
understands the minimum price restriction to preven t the quality of legal services from declining.)  
 
Answer  
Generally, when they exist, maxi mum fees aim at avoiding spiralling costs and therefore ensuring 
universal access to a given service. 
 In this regard, please note that Article 15(2)(g) of Directive 2006/123/EC (Services Directive) refers to fixed minimum and/or maximum tariffs imposed by legislation or professional rules for the provision of certain services. The Services Directi ve obliges EU Member States to review their 
legislation and professional rules and to evaluate whether requirements on fixed minimun or 
maximum tariffs are justified by an overriding reason of general interest and are proportionate to that 
aim (that is, the objective cannot be attained by less restrictive means).   The Directive has to be implemented by 28 Dece mber 2009 and the Commission is currently assisting 
Member States in the implementation of the Directive.  
 
Question 56 (WT/TPR/S/214) paragraph 173, page 154 
(1) When Japanese Certified Public Accountants (JCPA) audit any corporations within the EC 
 territories by Japanese laws and regulations, ar e the same regulations as described in the 
 second sentence of paragraph 173 imposed on them ?  
(2) Secondly, are there limitations on the cross-border supply of services other than the limitation 
 described in the second sentence of paragraph 173? (3) Finally, are both the period of Japanese uni versity education and the relevant business 
 experience allowed within the EC territories?  (4) Regarding the third sentence of para graph 173 in WTO/TPR/Secretariat Report, 
 Is there a residential requirement? Do we have to be a resident within the EC territories in 
 order to become membership in the relevant professional association?   
 
Answer
 
Pursuant to the Statutory Audit Directive (Directive 2006/43/EC), an auditor coming from a third country and auditing the financial statements of a company incorporated in the EU should be 
registered with the relevant EU Me mber State's competent authority and subject to the terms of the 
Directive. In particular, this registration is subject to the requirements laid down in Article 44 of the 
Directive for "Approval of auditors from third count ries". The Statutory Audit Directive does not lay 
down a minimum period of university education of four  to five years. Art 6 of the Directive only states 
that "a natural person may be approved to carry out a statutory audit only after having attained  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 91 
 
 
 university entrance or equivalent level […]". The app roval of the third country auditor is subject to 
the fulfilment of requirements equivalent to those la id down in Articles 4 and 6 to 13 of the Directive 
as well as application of the requirements laid down in Article 14. The main requirements are:  
Article 4. Good repute . "The competent authorities of a Member State may grant approval only to 
natural persons or firms of good repute" 
 
Article 6. Educational qualifications . "… a natural person may be appr oved to carry out a statutory 
audit only after having attained university entrance or  equivalent level, then completed a course of 
theoretical instruction, undergone practical training and passed an examination of professional 
competence of university final or equivalent examination level, organised or recognised by the 
Member State concerned." 
 Article 10. Practical training. " ... a trainee shall complete a minimum of three years' practical 
training in, inter alia, the auditing of annual acco unts, consolidated accounts or similar financial 
statements. At least two thirds of such practical training shall be completed with a statutory auditor 
or audit firm approved in any Member State." 
 Article 13. Continuing education.  "...  statutory auditors are required to take part in appropriate 
programmes of continuing education in order to maintain their theoretical knowledge, professional 
skills and values at a sufficiently high level…"  
Article 14.  Approval of statutory auditors from other Member States: aptitude test of professional 
knowledge.   Some Member States might require additional conditions in order to perform audits of specific kind of 
entities such as banks. In principle, if the qualifications of a third country auditor meet the 
requirements stated in Article 44 of the Statut ory Audit Directive, these should be recognized as 
equivalent. The recognition of these qu alifications is carried out by th e competent authorities in each 
Member States.   Some Member States require establishment or "profe ssional address" on their territory or in the EU. 
This is not a formal residence requirement, however. 
 
The Commission issued in July 2008 a Decision concerning a transitional period for audit activities 
of certain non-EU auditors and audit entities (Decisi on 2008/627/EC). The Decision allows 34 third 
country auditors and audit firms (including Japan)  to continue their audit activities regarding 
companies incorporated in the third country and lis ted on European capital markets by granting the 
concerned audit firm a transitional period in respect to registration requirements until 1 July 2010. 
According to the Decision, transition will be gr anted if third country audit firms comply with 
minimum information requirements necessary fo r investors' protection in Europe.   
 
APPENDIX TABLES 
 
Question 57 (WT/TPR/S/214) Table AIII, page 187 Japan understands that EU countries will accede to the WCT and the WPPT at one time after 
legislative process of each member country acco rding to Directive 2001/29/EC. Please provide the 
schedule to accession of the WCT and the WPPT.  Answer
 
Unfortunately it is impossible give a schedule as it is dependent on the ratification process in the 
individual Member States.  We are confident that  it will be concluded in the near future however.  
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 92  
 
 All Member States have implemented the WIPO Trea ties as they have implemented Directive 2001/29, 
but a special act of ratification of the treaties need s to be voted in the national parliaments. We are 
waiting for the last Member States to finish that in ternal process, so that the EU and the Member 
States can jointly ratify the treaties.  
SWITZERLAND
 
 
Report by the Secretariat 
 
III. T RADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURES  
(2) Measures directly affecting imports 
(i) Customs procedures 
 
Question 1 
Para 8 : The "Centralized Clearance" is an interes ting concept that will enab le an immense facilitation 
for the trade community since it will abolish the distances between the EU border and the trader. 
- Is this concept foreseen exclusively for EU inte rnal use only or is it envisaged that partner 
countries, for example neighboring countries, coul d connect to the datafl ow established by the 
EU in order to simplify customs procedures and reduce costs? 
- Could the EC already give some indication as to  when the concept of "Centralized Clearance" 
be introduced? 
- Will the "Centralized Clearance" be open for all traders or will it be restricted to Authorized 
Economic Operators (AEO)? 
 Answer
 
1. The concept of centralised cl earance is enshrined in the mod ernised Customs Code which is 
applicable only in the customs territory of the Community.  2. The modernised Customs Code becomes app licable once the implementing provisions have 
become applicable, but at the latest on 24 June 2013. 
 
3. The use of the concept is not restricted to AEO.  Question 2 
Para 13 states that the EC has negotiated or is negotiating a number of Customs Cooperation 
Agreements.  
- What criteria does the EC use in selecting th e partners with which to negotiate such 
agreements?  
- Is the EC willing to negotiate such recipr ocal Agreements with any WTO-Member?  
- Could the EC provide more information about the exact scope of on-going negotiations and 
the envisaged further Customs Cooperation Ag reements, as well as an assessment of the 
reasons for both the progress achieved as well as the difficulties encountered in concluding 
the agreements presently under negotiation? 
- How does the EC ensure that bilateral agreemen ts of mutual recognition of security standards 
and related Authorized Economic Operators Sche mes does not result in a "Spaghetti Bowl" of 
redundant, overlapping or even potentially contradictory requirements for globally active 
traders? 
 
Answer
 
To date, the EC has concluded specific customs cooperation and mutual administrative assistance 
agreements with Canada, China, India, Japan, Ko rea and US. Structured customs cooperation in the 
framework of broader trade agreements has been or being developed with the large majority of WTO 
members.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 93 
 
 
 The security risks affecting global trade have ma de it necessary to introduce additional security 
measures world wide. A general compatibility betw een these various programs is ensured by the 
WCO SAFE Framework. The specific requirements ma y differ between the different security trade 
partnership programmes; the negotiations of mut ual recognition of security standards should ensure 
the equivalence of these schemes between trade partners. The recognition of equivalence and the 
pursuant benefits for traders are a majo r simplification and facilitate trade. 
EC has negotiated mutual recognition with Switzerland, Norway, US and Japan. 
It is expected that agreements with Switzerland and Norway will be applie d as from July 2009. 
 
(II) TARIFFS  
 
Question 3 
Para 14 : According to the para 14, one of the types of duties applied by the EU are "per range tariffs", 
which vary according to given c.i.f "entry price" ranges. Could the EU explain more in detail how 
these tariffs are calculated ? Can the EU provide a concrete example ? 
 
Answer  
Up to and including 1994, imports of 15 differen t fresh fruit and vegetables were subject to the 
reference price regime. In this regime, on top of the ad valorem duty, a specific duty could be levied for products imported from a given origin, when the a verage price of all imports  from this origin was 
below a given reference price. The specific duty was proportional to the difference between the 
reference price and the average price of all imports from this origin. 
As of 1995, the reference price reg ime was replaced by the entry pr ice system which was accepted as 
part of the Uruguay Round agreement. It is conseque ntly bound. The three basic elements of this 
system, as specified in the agricultural schedule CXL, are:  
1. for each product and for each seasonal peri od, the maximum specific duty ever calculated 
under the old system is consolidated into a fixed  maximum specific duty called the 'full tariff 
equivalent'; as such, and in the terms of the UR agreement, the Commission is authorised to levy specific duties on 
all imports of the goods concerned;  
2. for each product and for each seasonal period, a threshold entry price is fixed; consignments 
imported at a price above the threshold are not subject to any specific duty at all; as such, the Commission grants a permanent concession to importers who respect a price, which is, on average, equivalent to the price of the same product on the domestic market. 
 
3. the maximum specific duty is levied only when the price of the consignment is below 92% of 
the threshold entry price; if the price of the co nsignment is between 100% and 92% of the full 
threshold entry price, the specific duty is progressi ve; it changes in steps of 2%, each of which 
corresponds with a 'price band' equal to 2% of the threshold entry price.  Question 4 
Table III.1: Could the EU explain why the average tariff for non-agricultural products (WTO 
definition) is slightly  higher in 2008 than in 2006 ? 
 
Answer
 
The change in the average does not correspond to any  increase in applied duties, but rather to the 
suppression of several tariff headings and to the simp lification of the tariff nomenclature of the EC. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 94  
 
 (iii) Other charges 
 
Question 5 
Paras 27 to 29 : According to paragraphs 27 to 29,  the respective Council directives regarding excise 
duties for alcohol products, tobacco products and en ergy products are being revised. Could the EU 
specify in more details the main changes foreseen  ? Will the minimum excise duties be increased, if 
yes to which amount ? 
 
Answer
 
Alcohol products 
 
The proposal made in 2006 relating to Alcohol was to  revalorise the existing minimum rates to take 
account of inflation since Directive 92/84/EEC was adopted in 1992. This would have entailed  
increases of 31% on those currently detailed in the directive. However, there has been no agreement 
amongst the Member States on this suggestion, and despite compromises being put forward there is 
currently still no agreement on any in creases to the minimum levels.  
 Tobacco products  With regard to tobacco, the current proposal is by  2014 to increase the minimum rate for cigarettes to 
90 Euros per 1,000; also the current requirement t hat the total excise duties (specific and ad valorem)  
must be at least 57% of the selling price [of the mo st popular price category of cigarettes], is to be 
increased to 63% [of weighted average retail se lling price].For fine-cut tobacco, the Commission 
proposes that by 2014 minimum rates will have grad ually increased to 60 Euro per kilogram and a 
proportional requirement that the total duty must be at  least 42% of selling price is also suggested.  
From 2010, it is proposed that the minimum rates for cigars and cigarillos will be 5% of the retail 
selling price or 12 Euros per kilogram; for smoking tobaccos it will be 20% of the retail selling price 
or 22 Euros per kilogram.  Energy products  Directive 2003/96/EC as currently in force sets mini mum levels for excise duties on energy products 
used as propellants and for he ating purposes and for electricity and sets a harmonized structure for 
these taxes.   The Commission Legislative and Work Programme 2008
17 lists the revision of Directive 2003/96/EC 
as a strategic initiative. It states that  energy taxation offers the potentia l for the EU to combine the 
incentive role of taxation in favour of more energy-efficient and environment-friendly energy 
consumption, with the ability to generate reve nue. As follow up of the green paper on market-based 
instruments for environment and related policy purposes18 the objective of the review is to make the 
Energy Taxation Directive a more supportive and effective instrument of the EU energy and climate change objectives.  
The adoption by the Commission of a proposal for the revision of Directive 2003/96/EC had been 
scheduled for 1 April 2009; however, the item has b een taken off the Commi ssion's agenda for the 
meeting on 1 April. If and for which products and uses a possible revision of the Energy Taxation 
Directive might eventually lead to an increase in  the minimum tax rates applicable cannot be 
predicted at this stage. 
 
                                                     
 
17 COM (2007) 640 final. 
18 COM (2007) 140 final.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 95 
 
 
 vi) Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing 
 Question 6 
Paras 45 and 47  : The report of the Secretariat mentions th at in the agricultural domain there are two 
types of licenses. On one hand the automatic licens es which are used in statistical purposes and of 
check of the origin. (§ 45 states: Import surve illance applies to […]agricultural products including 
cereals, rice, sugar, olive oil and table olives, milk  products, beef and veal, fresh fruit and vegetables, 
processed fruit and vegetables, bananas and ethyl alc ohol of agricultural origin.). On the other hand 
licenses which are used to manage tariff quotas (§47: The agricultural tariff quotas are managed 
through two methods:  first come-first served (at the border), and import licensing.). Can the EC 
please specify which are the differences between th ese two licenses, in particular regarding  the 
criteria and the obligations to be met by applicants wishing to obtain a license ?  
 
Answer
 
As regards imports, there are not 2 categories of licence, but just one, a single document using the 
model/form attached in Annex I to EC Regulatio n No. 376/2008 (as modified by R 514/2008) laying 
down detailed rules for the management of licences. The products subject to the presentation of an 
import licence are listed in Article 1 and Annex II, Part I of the above-mentioned EC Regulation. The 
issue of a licence is automatic and not subject to specific conditions.  As provided for in Article I (2) a) of the same  Regulation, the import licence is used for the 
management of TRQs administered by DG AGRI within the European Commission. Within these 
TRQs, the applicants for import licences must prove at the time their application is submitted that 
they have been engaged in trade with third countries (import or export) regarding the products of the 
sector of commodities concerned (cereals/beef/dai ry products...) for which the TRQ is opened.  
The licences are issued by competent author ities designated by the Member States. 
 
Question 7 
Para 47 of the report observes that "several administrative organs can grant import licenses for 
agricultural products". Please elaborate on the di fferent administrative organs granting import 
licenses. Do the administrative organs differ depending on the product group in question? 
 Answer
 
Please see reply to question 6. 
 
(ix) Government procurement 
 
Question 8 
Para 107 : Switzerland appreciates the fact that pursuant to the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to 
the EC, GPA Members benefit from a enlarged market access, which is of course granted on a reciprocal basis. Switzerland therefore considers  that the substantial contribution for the market 
access of the Members of the GPA consists not in the quantitative aspects of the geographical 
extension but in the legal quality and certainty of th e internal legislations which had been seriously 
examined by the EC in the course of the accessi ons process and which are now complying with the 
commitments of the EC procurement Directives. para  107 is also evidence that the EC plays an active 
role in the work on the GPA and that it tabled its revised offer in February 2008. What would be, in 
the view of the EC, the conditions to be met in order to bring the said negotiations to an acceptable 
end for all Parties envolved ? 
 
Answer
 
A successful completion of the ma rket access negotiations in the GPA would represent a significant 
achievement in the WTO, as an overall expansion of  coverage would give further incentive for other WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 96  
 
 WTO members to join th e Agreement. Also, in the current econom ic context, a satisfactory outcome 
on coverage would send a positive signal for further trade openness.   In the EC's view, one of the conditions for the su ccess of the negotiations has been met with the 
provisional agreement reached among GPA Parties at  the end of 2006 on a new text. However, 
further considerations should be given by GPA Parties on both the initial requests and revised offers 
circulated so far in the light of the mandate, which provides for the expansion of coverage and 
elimination of discriminatory measures. Also, the EC supports the views expressed by Switzerland in 
the GPA Committee on the need of  a comprehensive work program which would include all the 
market access issues which may not be solved in  the course of the current coverage negotiations. 
Along these lines, the EC and Switzerland have been long standing promoters of an ambitious result 
of the current GPA review.  
 
(3) Measures directly affecting exports 
(ii) Export taxes, charges and levies  
 
Question 9 
Para 71 : Could the EU indicate on which pr oducts an export levy can be imposed ? 
Answer
 
The EC does not apply export restrictions.  
 
Nevertheless, in case of disturbances caused by quotations or prices on the world market, the Commission may - pursuant to Article 187 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural 
products (OJ L 299, 16. 11. 2007, p. 1) - take th e necessary measures for the sector concerned. It 
concerns products of the cereals, rice, s ugar and milk and milk products sectors. 
 
(4) Measures Affecting Production and Trade 
(i) Assistance and other incentives 
 
Question 10 
In para 134, the Secretariat’s report mentions th at, in addition to assistance to research activities, 
assistance was provided also to the coal industry by EU Member States. In recent weeks, there have 
been numerous press accounts that both the EC and Member States were considering establishing or had already provided assistance for certain industrial sectors, such as the automotive industry. Given 
that no information in this respect is given in the Secretariat’s report nor in the Commission’s report, 
could the European Commission provide an update  of the measures already taken in favor of 
European industry, including subs idies to the manufacturing sector and indicate what further actions 
were being considered in the European Union as a response notably to the economic and financial 
crisis?  
Answer
 
The European Union is one of the very  few jurisdictions in the world that has in place a strict system 
to control and limit State subsidies to companies (or "State aid" as it is called in the EU). Under E 
State aid rules, State aid is normally prohibited unless it is targeted on measures that serve well-defined objectives of common interest and that are aimed at overcoming proven market failures. 
In addition, great care is taken to ensure that di stortions of competition and trade are minimised. 
State aid rules that existed prior to the fi nancial crisis encourage Member States to provide 
"horizontal" types of assistance to companies that a re generally considered to be less distortive, such 
as aid for research and development, training aid, aid to facilitate access to risk capital by SMEs, aid 
for environmental investment and investment in renew able energy, as well as aid to companies in 
disadvantaged regions.    WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 97 
 
 
 The Commission considers that its current St ate aid control system, which was thoroughly 
modernised in recent years19, has proven to be a solid and suffic iently flexible framework that has 
enabled it to formulate an adequate response to the deep crisis affecting the European financial sector and that is now also impacting very negatively the real economy.  
 
As it is described in paragraph 161 of the WT O Secretariat's report, in October 2008, the 
Commission published guidance
20 to Member States on how they can support financial institutions in 
response to the financial crisis in a way that respects existing EU State aid rules and avoids an undue distortion of competition. The guidance is based in pa rticular on EC Treaty pr ovision that permits aid 
to remedy a serious disturbance of the economy of a Member State (i.e. Article 87(b) of the EC 
Treaty).  
 On the basis of this guidance, Member States c an put in place concrete measures (such as e.g., 
guarantees, or recapitalisation schemes) if the aid is 1) well targeted (i.e. provides for the 
stabilisation of financial markets), 2) proportionate to  the objective (i.e. limited in scope and in time 
to what is necessary to address the crisis) and 3) does not distort competition by having a 
discriminatory effect on financial institutions in other Member States.   In December 2008, the Commission published further guidance
21 on bank recapitalisation schemes 
distinguishing between banks that are fundamentally sound and may receive temporary support to enhance the stability of financial markets and dist ressed banks whose business model brought about 
the risk of insolvency. In the case of distressed banks, safeguards must  be stricter to prevent distortion 
of competition and a thorough restructuring becomes necessary. 
 In the last months of 2008, it became evident that  the total failure of the fin ancial system started to 
undermine the real economy. As a re sult of the credit squeeze, otherw ise healthy companies started 
having difficulties getting access to the financing that they needed. In December 2008, the 
Commission therefore also adopted a temporary framework
22 for State aid measures to support access 
to finance, is applicable horizontally to all sectors.  Under this framework, Member States are allowed 
to grant (under certain circumstances), the following types of measures:  
 
- a lump sum of up to €500,000 p er company for the next two years; 
- state guarantees for loans at a reduced premium; 
- subsidised loans (in particular for th e production of green products meeting 
environmental protection standards) 
- risk capital aid up to €2.5 million per SME per year in cases where at least 30% of 
investment cost comes form private investors. 
 
It should be stressed that the above measures ha ve been introduced to address the very specific and 
exceptional problems created as a result of the financial  crisis. They will be "temporary" in nature 
and will expire in 2010.  
                                                     
 
19 The modernisation of EU State aid policy was based on the reform package which the Commission 
announced in its State aid action plan in 2005.  
20 Communication from the Commission - The application of measures taken in relations to financial 
institutions in the context of the current global financial crisis (OJ C 270/8) 25.10.2008.   
21 Communication from the Commission – The recapitalisation of financial institutions in the current 
financial crisis: limitation of aid to the minimum necessary and safeguards against undue distortions of competition (OJ C 2) 15.1.1009. 
22 Communication  from the Commission – Temporary Community Framework for State aid measures 
to support access to finance n the current financ ial and economic crisis, (OJ C 16/1) 22.1.2009.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 98  
 
 Member States must notify schemes that  fully comply with the conditions  set for these types of aid. If 
the Member States fully cooperate and provide adequat e information to show such compliance, the 
Commission approves the aid schemes quickly and indivi dual aid granted under such schemes then do 
not have to be notified.  
By 17 March 2009, the Commission had approved 19 Member States' aid schemes on the basis of the 
Temporary Framework. They involved, among other things , guarantees, subsidised interest rates, risk 
capital schemes and aid for the production of green produc ts. For further details, i.e, what type of aid 
was approved in which Member State and whic h industry, please see the following link: 
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.d o?reference=MEMO/09/111&format=HTML&aged=0
&language=EN&guiLanguage=en . 
 On 25 February 2009, the Commission adopted further guidance on the Treatment of Impaired Assets in the Community Banking sector23 in which th e Commission explains how it will deal with the 
removal of impaired assets from banks' balance sheet s in order to restore long term viability of the 
sector. Impaired assets have been identified as an obst acle to the restoration of confidence in the 
financial markets. The Communication takes into a ccount of the recommendations of the European 
Central Bank and follows extensive discussions with Member States. The Communication is based on 
a number of important principles which refin es and complements the prior Communications 
described above. The most important of these prin ciples require 1) full transparency and disclosure of 
impairments, 2) a coordinated approach to the ident ification of assets eligible for removal based on 
common principles, 3) adequate remuneration for th e State, and 4) an appropriate restructuring 
including measures to remedy competition distortions. The form of asset relief can vary, ranging from 
asset purchase, insurance, swap, guarantee or a combination of these.  The design of the asset relief sch eme, be it asset purchase, insurance, swap, guarantee or hybrid 
models, is the responsibility of each Member Stat e. The guidance issued by the Commission ensures 
that the schemes proposed by Member States will be s ubject to uniform State aid assessment criteria, 
which is essential to maintain a level playing fie ld throughout the internal market. The Commission 
approval for asset relief measures will be granted for a period of six months, and conditional on the 
commitment to present details of th e valuation of the impaired assets,  as well as a viability assessment 
and restructuring plan for each beneficiary institution within 3 months from its accession to the asset 
relief programme.  
 At this stage it is too early to assess the extent to  which the most recent guidance has been effective.  
 (iii) Competition and regulatory issues 
 
Question 11 
In para 162, the Secretariat’s report notes that 58%  of state aid was channeled in 2006 and 2007 to 
manufacturing activities in the European Union, with  even a larger percentage for manufacturing in 
more advanced EC Member States such as Sweden, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy and France. 
Could the European Commission indicate the reasons  for such large amounts of state aid to the 
manufacturing sector of more advanced EC Member States and what manufacturing activities 
benefited most from that aid ?  
Answer
 
Community State aid policy rules favour horizontal ai d to sectoral one. As a result,  they do not give a 
specific preference to the manufac turing sector, which can however rec eive aid on the basis of a large 
range of horizontal rules, such as, inter alia, aid for regional development, R&D, environmental 
                                                      
23 http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_aid/legislation/impaired assets.pdf. Not yet reported in the 
Official Journal.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 99 
 
 
 protection and energy saving, training or rescue and restructuring. The way aid granted on the basis 
of these rules will be distributed to the different econom ic sectors is ultimately the responsibility of the 
Member States. As a result, the Commission does not keep track of the manufacturing activities that 
benefit most from State aid. 
 
IV. Trade policies by sector (1) Introduction 
 
Question 12 
Para 1 : Production in construction is suffering h eavy losses in several Member Countries. To what 
extend can the market for construction materials be considered as integrated? Does for this reason the 
fall in new housing starts spread to other countries? 
 
Answer
 
In general, while cross-border trade of construc tion products of course is a factor influencing the 
propagation of the downturn in the sector, there are al so many other factors with cross-border effects 
and it is in general terms difficult to assess the impact of such an individual factor.  For example the 
general economic downturn, the financial sector pr oblems, reductions in access to credit, etc. have 
cross-border implications on the impact and the developm ent of the crisis across the EU. Having said 
this, we can provide the following information:  
1. Integration of the market of construction products 
 From a study undertaken in 2007 please find a summary table Conclusions: 
• The intra EEA-trade of construction produc ts shows major differences between product 
groups and fluctuates substantially year by year, following the annual fluctuations in 
consumption (depending on the economic situa tion in countries, building ‘booms’ etc.). 
‘Intra EEA trade as share of apparent consump tion’ is therefore a much better indicator 
for the level of intra EEA-trade. 
• For some products (thermal insulation pr oducts, wood based panels, sanitary appliances 
and fire detection/extinguishers) there is a grad ual increase shown in intra EEA trade (as 
share of apparent consumption). For all the other products it remains fairly constant. 
• Overall, the average intra EEA trade of all 13 product families shown (as share of  
consumption) increased from 21% in 1995 to 28% in 2005.  
(per cent) 
 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Growth in intra EEA trade            
Cement  -8 5 -2 21 3 -7 -3 -1 14 6 
S t r u c t u r a l  s t e e l             
- sections  -8 10 7 17 5 9 -3 -7 9 23 
- cold formed structural  steel  7 9 17 20 9 -1 -2 -2 3 -9 
- metal structures  2 3 14 20 4 7 0 1 3 0 
Reinforcing and prestressing steel for concrete            
- reinforcing steel  -10 8 -5 25 12 -3 6 11 39 -29 
- prestressing steel  100 9 12 6 18 4 0 1 8 5 
Masonry units  -11 -4 -2 13 -3 -11 -2 12 8 -6 
Thermal insulation products  8 11 9 18 7 1 4 1 9 2 
Wood based panels  4 13 10 19 14 1 8 3 10 -2 
Ceramic tiles  2 6 8 7 3 -4 -1 1 4 -4 
Windows  1 7 4 23 7 3 3 3 -3 -3 
Sanitary appliances  7 6 8 19 5 1 3 3 5 -1 
Pipes  7 7 10 -1 -7 -11 4 0 5 3 
Fire detection(fire extinguish ers  29 9 15 21 21 2 14 13 17 -18 
average growth for all products  9 7 8 16 7 -1 2 3 9 -2 
Intra EEA trade as share of apparent 
consumption            
Cement 8 7 7 7 8 8 7 7 7 8 8 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 100  
 
  1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 
Structural steel 
           
- sections 87 75 81 84 86 98 108 95 83 83 90 
- cold formed structural steel 16 13 12 13 17 17 17 17 16 16 22 
- metal structures 9 9 8 9 10 10 10 10 11 11 12 
Reinforcing and prestressing steel for concrete            
- reinforcing steel 26 23 2 20 23 24 23 24 24 20 18 
- prestressing steel 6 13 13 15 16 19 20 21 23 25 28 
Masonry units 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 3 3 4 3 
Thermal insulation products 23 23 24 25 27 28 28 29 31 33 36 
Wood based panels 26 26 26 27 30 33 35 37 38 40 39 
Ceramic tiles 47 43 44 45 45 47 45 44 45 45 45 
Windows 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 6 6 
Sanitary appliances 25 24 25 26 32 31 32 32 32 32 32 
Pipes 9 24 25 26 25 26 26 26 27 29 33 
Fire detection(fire extinguish ers 11 13 13 14 18 24 19 22 27 29 24 
average intra-EEA trade as share of apparent 
consumption for all products 21 22 21 23 25 27 27 27 27 27 28 
 
2. The Crisis in the Construction Sector  The construction industry comprising construc tion, renovation, maintenance and demolition of 
buildings and infrastructures employs directly around 13.6 million persons  and supports about 
26 million jobs in Europe . It represents 6.2% of GDP (in 2005). Around 2.7 million enterprises 
operate in this sector, which is characterized by  a dominance of small and medium sized enterprises 
(nearly 80%) many of them being micro enterpri ses (nearly 30%). Demand in Europe is coming from 
private households, the business society and the public  sector alike, the latter dominating demand for 
infrastructure building. 
 
Economic projections anticipate a reduction of 4.3% of  the total activity in 2009, which will mostly 
affect EU-15, where the trends are negative or barely positive in all countries. The forecasts are 
particularly negative for the Spanish and Irish markets . A slight shrinking in construction investment 
is also expected in 2009 in Germany. In the EU -12 the trends remain overall positive with few 
exceptions. 
The downturn will especially affect the residential sector but to some extent also the non-residential 
building sector. Renovation works in buildings, also due to efforts to make buildings more energy 
efficient, will somewhat cushion the impact of th e economic downturn. A slow and gradual recovery is 
expected in 2010-2011.  
Financing is of very high concern in this sector, as is public demand. While the first is very sensitive 
to moves in interest rates, asset prices and – as regards business investment – in economic 
projections, the latter is more affected by budget constraints.  3. Measures undertaken to support the Construction sector 
 
Several Member States have adopted or announced spec ific programs to promot e private and public 
investment in infrastructure projects. For example , the second fiscal programme of Germany provides 
for € 17 billion in infrastructure investments. The Fr ench "plan de relance" provides for € 4 billion in 
public infrastructure investments and € 1.9 billi on for housing projects. All these programs will 
benefit the European construction sector, and they w ill trigger positive knock-on effects for upstream 
suppliers. Here are also some examples of Member States additional measures in direct support of private 
housing demand and supply: 
• Belgium:  The government has announced the application of reduced VAT rates (6%) for 
new construction works up to a value of  50.000 € in 2009.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 101 
 
 
 • Ireland : Support the housing market - Taxation measures with estimated cost of 
€180 million or 0.1% of GDP, namely extension of the period of capital allowances for newly constructed building in order to in crease attractiveness of commercial building and 
reduction of stamp duty applicable to non- residential property and increasing mortgage 
interest relief for first- time homebuyers 
• Latvia:  Lifting of the obligatory 10% down-payment rule when taking a mortgage loan 
(i.e. the LTV ratio was maximized at 90%) and reversing the fee increase for registering 
in the landbook 
• Netherlands:  The guarantee fund for council hous ing "Waarborgfonds Sociale 
Woningbouw" will be expanded by  (temporarily) increasing the maximum level of the 
guarantee in special circumstances. This enabl es housing corporations to (partly) take 
over projects from commercial parties and to let out the houses.  
• Spain:  Draft bill on measures to stimulate th e renting market and energy efficiency in 
buildings. Authorisation will be given to create  Real Estate Investment Trusts which will 
have a favourable tax regime and whose main object will be to invest in property for rental purposes. The objective is to encourage  the renting market in Spain. In 2008, 
through ICO, the State guarantees for securitiz ing loans to SMEs were increased from 1 
to 3 billion euro, in order to promote rentals. Also, the ICO guarantee lines for securitisation of mortgage loans to buy soci al dwelling homes were increased from 3 to 
5 billion euro. VAT and Personal Income Tax.  Improved tax treatment of building 
refurbishment. Refurbishment whose cost is over 25% more than the acquisition price (not including the land). Effective January 2008.  The goal is for more projects to be 
eligible for a more neutral beneficial tax scheme, improving input VAT recovery and 
stimulating the construction industry. Th e same applies to the rehabilitation credit 
allowed for the habitual dwelling under Personal Income Tax. 
• UK: Homeowners support package - of £1.6 b illion (0.13% of GDP), including a new 
shared equity scheme to support first-tim e buyers, support to vulnerable homeowners at 
risk of repossession and a £ 400 million progra mme to support social housing supply. 
The government also decided to temporarily  raise the tax-free threshold for the UK's 
residential property transaction tax for one year from £125,000 to £175,000 (estimated 
to cost around £600 million in foregone revenues). 
 
(2) Agriculture and related activities ii) Common Agricultural Policy   Question 13 
Para 10 : Are expenditures on rural development and support to agriculture provided through the 
"European Regional Development Fund" taken into account when it comes to computing the total producer support estimate (PSE) according to the OCDE? What share of the PSE does it represent? 
 
Answer
 
There is no such thing as a Total Producer Support Estimate but just a Producer Support Estimate 
and a Total Support Estimate. All expenditure be it rural development or agricultural support is 
included as part of the PSE.   Beyond that the PSE includes under MPS - derived from  a market price gap calculation i.e. the wedge 
between current external and domestic prices (diffe rent from the WTO price gap calculation)- a 
monetised amount estimated to be support; in the EC mainly derived  from tariffs but also from 
imperfect market conditions, currency exchange rate  fluctuations originating in reference prices 
quoted in other currencies than the Euro and climatic impacts.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 102  
 
 Not included in the PSE is the General Servi ces Support Estimate, which corresponds to public 
administration, internal food aid,  agricultural research & education as well as generic promotion etc. 
The PSE + the GSSE together form  the Total Support Equivalent (TSE) which is measured as a 
percentage of GDP. Of course this methodology is applied in the same way to Switzerland as to the 
EC. 
 
Question 14 
Para 44 : The report notes in § 44 that "the EC maintains a number of schemes for the subsidized 
disposal of dairy products on the internal market". However it is equally stated that several subsidies 
were suspended or reduced to zero and no interven tion was used in 2006-08 for SMP, nor for butter in 
2007/08. Taking into account that expor t subsidies were reintroduced at the beginning of 2009, are the 
schemes for the subsidized disposal of dairy produ cts on the internal market reactivated in equal 
measure?  
Answer
 
Internal butter disposal was abolished as a result of the Health Check decisions. The aid for SMP in 
animal feed and processing aid for skimmed milk into casein remains as an option. So far the EC has 
not introduced an aid for the latter two schemes. i.e the aid is zero.   
 Intervention opened on 1 March 2009. This year for the first time since 2007 for butter, and since 
2006 for SMP, there were quantities offered into inte rvention. For butter the ceiling of 30,000 tonnes 
at which butter is bought in at a fixed price has been reached and the Commissi on continues to buy in 
via a tender procedure. The ceiling fo r SMP has not been reached yet. 
 
(4) Manufacturing 
 
Question 15 In para 88 it is said that Member States were give n temporary authorization to subsidize part of the 
cost of guarantees for loans to car producers. Does this scheme also extend to subcontractors of the 
manufacturing industries. Was there any threshold fi xed regarding the value in terms of percentages 
of turnover these guarantees may attain.   Answer
 
As mentioned above, the Temporary Framework ( see reply to Question 10) has allowed Member 
States to take (under certain circumstances) a seri es of measures. These measures are not limited to 
one sector and can be used by Member States also in favour of companies which are subcontractors 
to other manufacturers.  
 
Further, the Temporary Framewo rk does foresee some conditions in  terms of percentages of the 
annual wage bill of the company be nefitting from the guarantee, namely24: 
"(d) the maximum loan does not exceed the total annual  wage bill of the beneficiary (including social 
charges as well as the cost of personnel working on the company site but formally in the payroll of 
subcontractors) for 2008. In the case of compani es created on or after 1 January 2008, the maximum 
loan must not exceed the estimated annual wage  bill for the first two years in operation".  
 
Question 16 
Para105: What is the importance of textile producti on on the southern rim of the Mediterranean Sea 
after the fall of the multifibre agreement. Do rules of origin continue to play an important role ? 
 
                                                      
24 Point 4.3.2, letter d) of the Temporary Framework, mentioned above in footnote 4.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 103 
 
 
 Answer  
Textile production on the Southern rim of the Me diterranean Sea remains an important production 
and export sector. Following the end of the multi-fi bre agreement, market shares of Mediterranean 
countries in EU markets have broadly been maintained.   
The EC considers that rules of origin usually pl ay an important role, due  to the increased trade 
opportunities offered by the application of cumu lation. This concerns in particular diagonal 
cumulation of origin in the pan-euro-med area. This type of cumulation applies to all countries in the  
zone having concluded an FTA, where the latter incl udes a protocol on rules of origin providing for 
diagonal cumulation (on a regional or bilateral basis). 
 
AUSTRALIA
 
 
Question 1 
Australia notes that the EC’s trade policy aims to contribute to, inter alia, the progressive dismantling 
of restrictions on international trade and the lowering of customs barriers (WT/TPR/S/214, p vii 
para 6).  Despite this, the Review notes that the EC’s trade regime has remained largely unchanged 
since its last TPR and the structure of the EC’s  common MFN tariff remains broadly unchanged over 
the last few years and is complex (WT/TPR/S/214, p viii para 10).   How does the EC respond to this analysis?  Wh en and how does the EC plan to reduce such 
complexity and further dismantle its trade restrictions and customs barriers? 
 
Answer
 
The EC has undergone further enlargement which has provided WTO Membe rs with improved market 
access conditions, including on agricultural commodities.   The EC has also adopted a reform of the 
customs code which has implied a major simplificati on of customs procedures to all exporters to the 
EC market and dismantled certain remaining restric tions.  EC will also of course increase trade 
opportunities when the Doha Round which has been underway since 2001 is completed.  The EU is 
firmly committed to concluding the Doha Round, as  demonstrated by the extent and depth of 
concessions conditionally tabled, and will continue to  advocate early closure, as the EU considers 
that Doha would be the most effective means  of both creating new trading opportunities and of 
preventing potentially protectionist measures.   
 II. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES (1) INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK 
 
Question 2 
Australia notes that the adoption of the Treaty of Li sbon will result in institutional changes aimed at 
streamlining the workings of the EC, with a view to  enhancing efficiency, de mocratic legitimacy and 
coherence of action (WT/TPR/S/214, p 15 para 7).  What effect will the Lisbon Treaty have on the EC’s ability to authorise and sign-off on trade 
negotiations, including the Doha Round and EU Free Trade Agreements?   
 
Answer
 
The Lisbon Treaty extends the scope of the Co mmon commercial policy to include foreign direct 
investment, so implies that a broader range of agr eements can be authorised and ratified by the EU 
institutions without requiring concurrent ratification by Member States. How this will affect the 
authorisation and/or ratification of specific agreem ents will depend in each case on the specific 
content of the agreement.   
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 104  
 
 Will the European Parliament have the right to veto  authorisation of a trade agreement negotiated by 
the Commission on behalf of EU Member States?  
Answer
 
The Lisbon Treaty gives the right to authorise negotia tions only to the Council of Ministers, in which 
the Member States sit.  The Commission will be re quired to report regularly to the Council and the 
European Parliament on th e progress of negotiations. 
 
(5) TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS 
(ii) WTO 
 
Question 3 
Australia notes that the EC grants at least MFN treat ment to all trading part ners (WT/TPR/S/214, p 21 
para 28) and is concerned by the Secretariat’s anal ysis (WT/TPR/S/214, p viii para 9) that as a result 
of the EC’s wide network of preferential agreemen ts, together with the large number of countries 
eligible for unilateral preferences, the EC’s MF N tariff is applied to only nine WTO Members, 
including Australia, and that the share for these ni ne countries of the EC’s merchandise imports has 
decreased from about 30% in 2005 to 27.5% in 2007.   How does the EC propose to ensure that the benefits of its trade liberalisation measures flow to those 
countries demonstrating a commitment to an open, international trade regime as WTO Members?  
 Answer
 
The EC grants preferential market a ccess mainly to developing countries, and it does so mostly on an 
autonomous basis. The EC grants solely MFN treatm ent to industrialised Members only. Against this 
background, we would note that this reduction in the share of EC merchandise imports for these nine 
countries should not be solely attributed to MFN tariffs as opposed to preferential access, as many 
other factors of  course affect trade flows, includi ng exchange rates, commodity price fluctuation, and 
wider macro-economic conditions.  In terms of manufactured goods, there has been a marked 
increase of imports from developed countries in export markets previously dominated by 
industrialised countries.  Moreover, we note that during the 2005-7 period to which Australia refers, 
in absolute terms Australia's exports to the EU in creased.  Finally, the EU is strongly committed to 
the Doha Round, which will provide new trading op portunities on the EU market on an MFN basis, as 
well as addressing wider issues such as  agricultural export subsidies. 
 III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE (2) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
(ii) Tariffs 
(a) Common custom MFN tariff  Question 4 
Australia notes that the EC tariff structure for agriculture remains complex and all tariff rates above 
100% relate to agricultural produc ts (WTO definition), and averag e protection above 30% continues 
to apply mostly to agricultural products (meat, dairy products, cereals, sugars) (HS Chapters 02, 04, 
10 and 17) (WT/TPR/S/214, p 39 para 17).  Can the EC explain why agricultural tariffs above 100% are necessary to protect its domestic 
industry?  Answer
 
We would like to note that the reference in the WT O Secretariat is made to AVEs, and it should be 
remembered that conversion into ad valorem causes di stortions in the actual level of protection.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 105 
 
 
 Furthermore, the EC does not agree with the A VEs calculated by the WTO Secretariat. The 
Secretariat has been informed of our disagreem ent during the preparatio ns of the TPR. The 
Secretariat has shared with us the details of its calculations. Having analysed these, the EC questions 
the methodology used by the WTO Secretariat. We have asked the WTO Secretariat for further 
clarifications on the AVE calculation issue.   
All issues related to tariffs reduction and simplific ation are discussed under the market access pillar 
in the context of the DDA negotiations, where the EC  has offered to reduce its tariffs substantially. 
 Question 5 
Australia notes that Australian exporters have had to reject approaches by EU processors for product 
because of quota limits or high tariffs.  It is diffi cult for agricultural exporting countries like Australia 
to diversify exports into the EU in this  scenario, despite a demand for their goods. 
 How does the EC explain these impediments to its own food processors? 
 
Answer
 
Decisions on EC trade policy measures are taken after consultation with all relevant stakeholders 
with a view to reaching a balanced solution. 
 
Question 6 
The EC has sizable applied tariff peaks, with a reported applied rate of  604.3% (an ad-valorem 
equivalent) for iso-glucose (2008)  (WT/TPR/S/214, p 39 para 16). 
How does the EC justify the maintena nce of such high tariff levels? 
What domestic reforms are the EC undertaking to  enable the removal of these tariff peaks? 
 
Answer  
The EC does not agree with the AVEs calculated by the WTO Secretariat and it has been informed of 
our disagreement during the preparations of the TPR.  The Secretariat has shared with us the details 
of its calculations. Having analysed these, the EC  questions the methodology used by the WTO 
Secretariat in its AVEs calculations. We have recalcul ated the AVE for this specific isoglucose tariff 
line 17024010, using 2007 Comext data, and the resulting AVE is 133.3% for EU15, 128.57% for EU25, and 22.43% for EU27. We have asked the WT O Secretariat for further clarifications on the 
AVE calculation issue.   
 Question 7 
The Secretariat’s report highlights the continuing  significant disparity between agricultural and 
NAMA applied tariffs (based on the WTO definiti on) – 17.9% (agriculture) vs. 4.2% (NAMA) 
(WT/TPR/S/214, p 40 Table III.1). 
 Can the EC please explain whether it plans to implem ent a review and reform process to remove this 
disparity?  
Answer
 
The disparity results from the fact that 8 rounds of WTO negotiations were devoted to NAMA while 
only one to agricultural market access. The respective tariff reduc tions for AMA and NAMA are still 
under discussions under the DDA.  (vi) Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing 
(b) Quantitative restrictions and licensing  
Question 8 
Given the restrictive out-of-quota tariffs on dairy, most dairy trade occurs under TRQs 
(WT/TPR/S/214, p. 51, para 47).  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 106  
 
 As the stated aims of the CAP reforms are to impr ove market orientation and global competitiveness, 
when does the EC intend to remove these restric tive barriers and allow for greater competitiveness? 
 
Answer
 
Our tariffs are bound at this level. The respectiv e tariff reductions for AMA are still under discussions 
under the DDA.  
(viii) Technical regulations and other technical requirements 
(a) Technical barriers to trade (TBT) 
 
Question 9 
EC Regulations and Directives have a significant effect on the ability of non-members, including 
Australia, to trade with Europe, and raise legitima te concerns.  Australia notes concerns that the 
reclassification of nickel carbonate and 117 othe r nickel compounds under Adaptation to Technical 
Progress (ATP) 30 and 31 could create unnecessary barri ers to trade in chemicals (WT/TPR/S/214, p 
58 para 72).  Australia continues to hold the view that the scientific methodology used by the EU to 
reclassify the nickel compounds was not applied in a robust or scientifically valid manner; that the 
reclassification decision is flawed; and that deci sions of this nature should be based on sound and 
defensible science.  Will the EC review its assessments now that the Dangerous Substances Directive (DSD) has been 
replaced by the new Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) regime? 
Can the EC confirm that reclassification of ni ckel compounds under ATP 30 and 31 will not affect 
trade?  What will be the effect of the reclassification on the public perception of nickel? Will the EC provide an assurance that the future assessment of substances will be undertaken in a 
robust, defensible and sci entifically sound manner? 
 
Answers
 
(1) According to Article 37 of the CLP Regula tion, if Member States' Competent Authorities (MS 
CA) or industry would like to make proposals for clas sification or reconsideration of classification of 
substances already classified, they can do so followi ng a clear assessment procedure. As stated in 
Article 37, only MS CAs can submit proposals fo r a revision of the harmonised classification and 
labelling to the European Chemicals Agency (ECH A). According to Article 37 (6) if industry has 
information which may lead to a change of the harm onised classification and la belling of a substance, 
it can submit such a proposal to the CA in one of the Member States in which the substance is placed 
on the market. The submitted dossier must be drawn up in accordance with the relevant parts of the 
Regulation 1907/2006 and assessed by the Committ ee for Risk Assessment (RAC) of the Agency who 
must issue an opinion on the proposal within 18 m onths from the date of receipt, giving the parties 
concerned the opportunity to comment.  The RAC will then forward its opinion and any comments to 
the Commission.   (2) The 30
th and 31st ATP amended Annex I to Directive 67/548/EEC by introducing new and 
updated harmonised classifications. The 30th and 31st ATP required dangerous substances to be 
properly labelled and packaged to prevent danger. In formation on the dangers of the substance and 
the precautions to be taken are transmitted by me ans of warning labels containing standard symbols 
and phrases. All substances and mixtures placed on th e EU market, whether produced within the EU 
or imported, are subject to the same classific ation and labelling requirements based on the same 
criteria. The 30th and 31st ATP harmonised the classification of th e substances in the Annex with the 
aim of ensuring the functioning of the internal ma rket on the basis of the best available scientific 
information. As the classification of substances in itself does not imply restrictions on their use, the 
EC, after thorough examination, concluded that th e impact of the 30th and 31st ATP on trade was 
minimal – indeed the main consequence is that th e classified substances or preparations would need 
to be labelled in accordance to the provisions of the DSD. The proposal for the 30th and 31st ATP ,  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 107 
 
 
 including the classification of the Nickel compounds, was notified to the WTO TBT Committee to  give 
WTO members the opportunity to submit comments. A discussion in the TBT Committee took place in 
November 2008, preceded by an expert meeting prov iding further possibility for third countries to 
specify and substantiate their concerns. Various bilat eral meetings also took place.  The EC has asked 
industry and WTO members to substantiate their ar guments on the negative im pact on trade – to date, 
we have not received any information on this , except for some speculation about possible 
consequences this classification could en tail under REACH and other EC legislation. 
 (3) The overall purpose of the CLP Regulation is to ensure a high level of protection of human health and the environment, as well as the fr ee movement of chemical substances and mixtures. 
Regarding public perception of any substance include d in the harmonised classification and labelling, 
it is the aim of the Regulation to ensure that customers receive adequate and reliable information on 
the hazards of such substances and mixtures.   (4)  The EC provides the assurance that the futu re assessment of substances will be undertaken in 
a robust, defensible and scientifica lly sound manner as done in the past on the basis of the best 
available scientific information.    (b) Sanitary and phytosanitary 
 
Question 10 
Australia notes that the EC introduced a new system for pesticide maximum residue levels (MRLs) in 
food on 1 September 2008 (WT/TPR/S/214, p 62 para  84).  This system consolidates divergent 
national lists of MRLs through replacement w ith 75,000 harmonised EC MRLs and covers all 
agricultural products. Regulation of the system is en forced by member states through national control 
programs, with inspections carried out by the F ood and Veterinary Office of the Commission.   
 
Can the EC provide details on the progress in the im plementation of this system including the number 
of harmonised EC MRLs currently in place and the timetable for further MRLs to be introduced? 
 
Answer
 
75,000 EC MRLs have already been harmonised. C hanges to existing MRLs or new MRLs are set if 
necessary, for example, when new u ses are going to be granted or when some concern is raised. 
There is not a fixed timetable. The time needed  to set a new MRL is approximately one year.  
 Question 11 
Australia has experienced some problems with  MRLs at the point-of-import into the EU. 
 
Can the EC provide copies of recent reports on the outcomes of inspections by the Food and 
Veterinary Office of the Commission on the implementation of each Member’s national control program? 
 
Answer
 
All reports of FVO inspection missions are av ailable and posted on the FVO webpage: FVO Home 
page: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/index_en.cfm . 
 FVO: Pesticide Monitoring Reports  http://ec.europa.eu/food/fvo/speci alreports/pesticides_index_en.htm
. 
 
How can importers, who may potentially face considerable costs from delays, quickly resolve 
differences in application? 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 108  
 
 Answer
 
The MRLs are fully harmonised across the EU since 1st September 2008. The system has been put in 
place to avoid different implementation in the EC MS  because these regulations are applicable to all 
citizens of the EU without any transposition in the national laws of the EC Member States.  
In general, can the EC advise on progress in th e harmonisation of SPS regulations across Member 
States and the basis for monitoring the consistenc y of their implementation by individual Members? 
 
Answer
 
There are comprehensive reports available on th e transposition, implemen tation and enforcement 
(TIE) of Community law in the Member States. A ll Community legislation and enforcement measures 
are drawn up in very close co-operation with the Member States and generally require their 
agreement. This includes very regular meetings to o versee this process. This is all carried out in a 
very transparent manner with the age ndas and reports of meetings pub licly available on the internet. 
Community legislation as a general rule does establish target dates for the transposition and 
implementation of measures. 
The SPS Agreement is part of the "acquis commun itaire". Each EC Member State is responsible for 
the implementation of Community law within its ow n legal system. Under the Treaties (Article 226 of 
the EC Treaty), the Commission of the European  Communities is responsible for ensuring that 
Community law is correctly applied. Consequently , where a Member State fails to comply with 
Community law, the Commission has powers of its own to try to bring the infringement to an end and, 
where necessary, may refer the case to the Europe an Court of Justice. The Commission takes 
whatever action it deems appropriate in response to either a complaint or indications of 
infringements which it detects itself. Non-compli ance means failure by a Member State to fulfil its 
obligations under Community law. It may consist either of action or omission.  
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/in fringements/infringements_en.htm    
 
(ix) Government procurement 
 
Question 12 
Australia notes that the EC is a signatory to th e plurilateral Government  Procurement Agreement 
(GPA) concluded under the WTO and that all EC Member States pr ovide national treatment for goods 
or suppliers from the GPA signatory countries (WT/TPR/S/214, p 70 para 107). 
 Could the EC advise whether it applies a general principle of non-discrimination in government 
procurement?  In particular, does the EC discrim inate against the suppliers, goods and services of 
WTO Members which are not parties to the WTO government procurement agreement (GPA), but 
which grant access to their procurement market for the suppliers, goods and services of the EC? 
 
Answer
 
For procurement which do not benefit either from th e GPA or any bilateral agreement protection, the 
EU does not maintain any "Buy European" policy. Hence, there is no EU-wide prohibition against the 
purchase of foreign goods or services. Also, foreign  goods or services are not subject to additional 
constraints such as price preferences or pref erential regimes in favour of European SMEs. 
 Suppliers from third countries have the right to participate and they are granted national treatment in EU tendering procedures if an international agreement concluded by the EU in the field of public 
procurement grants them the right to do so (GPA or  bilateral agreements with  the EU). In case there 
is no such an agreement or the agreement does not apply to the procurement in question, suppliers 
from third countries do not benefit fr om any legal certainty as they have no legal right to participate. 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 109 
 
 
 Could the EC please provide a brief on internal a rrangements for suppliers to  challenge procurement 
processes and outcomes?  Specifically, are there arrangements that apply across the EC? Are they accessible to all suppliers (including th ose from countries not party to the GPA)? 
 
Answer
 
The rules for the award of public contracts by contra cting authorities are stipulated by the  Directives 
2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC. The proce dural challenge rules for proc urement governed by these two 
directives are laid out in two Directives ("the Re medies Directives") which are as follows:  
 
 Council Directive 89/665/EEC of the 21st December 1989 on the co-ordination on the 
laws regulations and administrative provisi ons relating to the application of review 
procedures to the award of public supply and public works contracts ; 
 Council Directive 92/13/EEC of the 25th February 1992 on the co-ordination of the 
laws regulations and administrative provisions relating to the application of Community Rules on the procurement proce dures of entities operating in the water, 
energy, transport and telecommunications sectors  
  
The Remedies Directives oblige each Member State to ensure that effective remedies and means of 
enforcement are made available to  bidders in the Courts of the Member States where these bidders 
believe that they have been harmed as a consequence of  a breach of the public procurement rules. As 
mentioned in the Secretariat's Report, th ese two Directives have been amended by 
Directive 2007/66/EC. This Directive seeks to stre ngthen legal review procedures in the area of 
public procurement. It introduces two major changes. First, according to the Directive, contracting 
authorities need to wait for at least 10 days after d eciding who has won the public contract before the 
contract can actually be signed. This "standstill p eriod" is designed to give bidders time to examine 
the decision and to assess whether it is appropriate to initiate a review procedure. If this standstill 
period has not been respected, the Directive requir es national courts under certain conditions to set 
aside a signed contract, by rendering the contract "ineffective". Also, the Directive seeks to combat 
illegal direct awards of public contracts. National  courts will also be able to render these public 
contracts ineffective if they have been illegally  awarded without transparency and prior competitive 
tendering. In these cases the contra ct will need to be tendered again, this time according to the 
appropriate rules. National courts may decide that  these contracts remain in force only if required by 
overriding reasons relating to a general interest. In those cases, alternative penalties must be applied 
instead. These alternative penalties must be eff ective, proportionate and dissuasive, and may entail 
the shortening of the duration of the contract or  the imposition of fines on the contracting authority. 
 The remedies regime in the EU is accessible to s uppliers from third countries with which the EU has 
an agreement in the field of procurement.  
(3) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING EXPORTS 
(iv) Export Subsidies 
 
Question 13 
Australia notes the EC is responsible for export refunds under the CAP (WT/TPR/S/124, p 72).  The 
EC committed not to revert to protectionist measur es at the G20 Leaders’ Summit in November 2008.  
It also has restated its commitment to eliminate export subsidies by the end of 2013 in line with the 
2005 Hong Kong WTO Ministerial Declaration.    
Can the EC explain whether it believes the reintroduc tion of dairy export subsidies is within the spirit 
of the G20 commitment?  What message does it send to other WTO Members, particularly at a time of global economic downturn? Can the EC clarify its intention to abolish all its export refunds by 2013, irrespective of the outcome 
of the Doha Round? WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 110  
 
 Does the EC expect that its reintroduction of da iry export refunds will spark other countries to 
introduce export subsidies in order to compete? What domestic reforms is the EC undertaking to help  European dairy producers deal with a similar 
downturn post-2013, when export subsidies are no longer available? 
 
Answer
 
The decision taken to reintroduce export refunds for dairy products concerns a temporary measure 
without any predetermined duration. In the process of allocating these export subsidies the EC will of 
course respect its WTO commitments. The G20 Co mmuniqué does not preclude the possibility to 
resort to WTO compatible export refunds. The EU  is committed to the "Doha Development Agenda" 
(DDA), negotiations which aim at further libera lising trade, substantially  cut trade distorting 
agricultural support and eliminate trade distorting export competition practices. The EC stands by its 
commitment to eliminate export subsidies by 2013 on condition of the successful completion of the 
DDA. The question about the post-2013 situation is a hypothetic al question. We do not feel this should be 
answered in the TPR context which should be a review  of past EC policy, especially while the DDA 
negotiations are still ongoing.  Question 14 
Australia notes that export refunds have been a bolished or discontinued for cereals, fruit and 
vegetables, and wine (WT/TPR/S/124, p 72 para 116). 
Will the EC provide an assurance that it will not re-introduce export subsidies on these agricultural 
products? If not, why? 
 
Answer
 
1) Fruit and vegetables 
Following the implementation of the 2007 reform of the F&V CMO, the EU has abolished export 
refunds on fruits and vegetables as from 1.1.200 8 (Commission Regulation 1182/2007, which has 
been integrated into the single CMO (R1234/2007).  This decision is meant to align the fruit & vegetable CMO with the reformed CAP, aimed at e liminating all product-coupled support, including 
export refunds and EU-financed withdrawals (except for free distribution).   
2) Wine 
Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in 
wine suspends export refunds. However, the Commissi on, at the request of the Member States, retains 
the possibility to re-introduce export refunds if the ma rket situation is disturbed or likely to be 
disturbed within WTO limits. For the time being,  the Commission has no intention to apply export 
refunds for wine. 
 3) Cereals Export refunds for cereals still exist as an in strument but currently it is not used. 
 (4) MEASURES AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND TRADE 
(i) Assistance and other incentives 
(a) Structural actions 
 
Question 15 
Agricultural support is the largest area of the EC’s financial commitments (44%  of the EC’s financial 
commitments in 2003-04) (WT/TPR/S/214, p 73 para 119). While Australia encourages the increasing 
decoupling of production from CAP supports, we remain  concerned at the continuing enormity of the 
level of this expenditure and the indirect stimulus  it may give to production through, for example, 
measures to keep land farmed.    WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 111 
 
 
 Has the EC undertaken analysis of the extent to which producers are income-dependant on CAP 
payments?  If so, what were the results? Has the EC undertaken analysis of the movements in land values?  If so, what were the results? 
Given that it has been independently reported (Agr a Europe, March 6, 2009) that 85% of the Single 
Payment Scheme goes to only 17% of farmers who c ontrol more than 80% of the EU’s farmed land, 
how does the EC consider this justifies CAP expe nditure for resolution of rural social issues? 
 
Answer
 
(1) The EC undertakes on a regular basis analysis of the extent to which producers are income dependent on CAP payments. This is done both inte rnally and through commissioned external studies. 
Below follows a brief description of the current situation. 
Farm net value added (FNVA) is chosen as income  indicator. FNVA represents amount available for 
remuneration of the fixed factors of production (wor k, land and capital), whether they be external or 
family factors. Data in the tabl e are given as an average per farm in EU-25. The share of direct 
payments in FNVA ranges from 31.3 % in 2004 to 34.5 % in 2006. The share of the sum of direct 
payments and payments for rural development in FNVA ranges from 36.9 % in 2004 to 41.2 % in 
2006. It has to be emphasised however, that the figu res provided are based on a sample representing only a 
part of the total farm population (farms above a certain economic size). Although, FADN represents a 
large share of total production, estimates of C AP payments based on FADN sample will differ from 
the official values. Additionally, it has to be not ed that the figures presented include not only CAP 
payments but as well national payments. 
 
Farm income, direct payments, payments for rural developm ent and the share of support in farm income (2004-2006) 
  EU-25 
  2004 2005 2006 
FNVA € per farm 27 681 27 764 29 483 
Direct payments (DP)* € per farm 8 674 9 163 10 180 
Rural development (RD)** € per farm 1 542 1 781 1 955 
Direct payments/FNVA % 31.3 33.0 34.5 
DP+RD/FNVA % 36.9 39.4 41.2 
 
* Includes both EU and national direct payments. 
 ** Includes both Eu and national payments for rura l development.  Support for investment is excluded. 
 
Source: EU FADN – DG AGRI. 
 
(2) Yes, the EC has undertaken analysis on land valu es. In brief, the results suggest that there is 
a lot of variation within the EU. Current land pri ces as well as rental prices differ strongly across the 
EU, and the developments of land prices over the past  decade have also varied greatly. As for the 
drivers of land values, several factors are import ant. Agricultural commodity prices and agricultural 
productivity, infrastructural expansi on and urban pressures. The facto rs' relative importance differs 
between rental and purchase markets. Land market re gulations, rental contract restrictions and land 
taxes also influence movements in  land values. Finally, also CAP subsidies have an impact on land 
values, but the impact varies importantly across c ountries and appears relativel y modest compared to 
other factors, in particular where land prices are high.  (3) Currently 90% of the EC's direct payments a re decoupled. Most of the decoupled payments 
are paid out under the Single Payment Scheme. This  scheme was notified as a Green Box measure in 
conformity with par 6 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. 
The payments contribute to the viability of the Euro pean countryside by providing farmers with a fair 
standard of living, in particular by increasing th e individual earnings of persons engaged in 
agriculture (this is one of the objectives of the Comm on Agricultural Policy as enshrined in the Treaty 
establishing the European Community). 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 112  
 
 Question 16 
Australia notes that structural operations counted fo r some 33% of the EC’s financial commitments in 
2003-04 – the second largest area of expenditu re (WT/TPR/S/214, p 73 para 119).  
 Has the EC undertaken analysis of the direct and indirect impact of the rural development programs 
on agricultural production, particularly in regard to support for Member States which have recently 
acceeded, or are in the process of acceding, or in  areas with climatic or geographic limitations? 
 
Answer
 
The assessment of direct and indirect impacts of rural development programmes 2000-2006 falls 
within the scope of the (mid-term and ex-post) eva luations of these programmes. These evaluations 
are carried out at programme level under the respons ibility of the Member States, while the European 
Commission is responsible for carrying out a Community-level summary upon receipt of the 
individual evaluation reports. Ex-post evaluation reports of rural development programmes 2000-2006, as well as of transitional 
rural development programmes (EU-10) mid-2004- 2006, were expected to be submitted by the 
Member States by the end of the year 2008. The Commission is currently preparing the call for 
tenders for launching the respective European summaries.  The same applies for the synthesis of ex-
post evaluations of the Special Accession Pr ogrammes for Agriculture and Rural Development 
(SAPARD) 2000-mid-2004. The results of the above-menti oned synthesis are expected to be available 
by the end of 2010. 
 
The results of the synthesis of the mid-term eval uations of rural development programmes 2000-2006, 
are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/eval/ reports/rdmidterm/index_en.htm  
 
A specific evaluation of the Less Favoured Areas (LFA) measure in the 25 Member States of the 
European Union was launched by the EC and carried out by an external consultant in the year 2006 
(http://ec.europa.eu/agricultu re/eval/reports/lfa/index_en.htm) 
 It must be highlighted that most of the rura l development measures comply with the criteria of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture and are th erefore Green Box measures with no or at most 
minimal, trade-distorting effects or effects on production.  
(b) Support to agriculture and fisheries 
 
Question 17 
Australia notes that the EC continues to provide "other aid" schemes coupled to the production of 
several key products, including rice, milk, sheepmeat, beef and veal, durum whea t, nuts, energy crops, 
starch potatoes, olive oils, seeds, grain legumes, cotton, sugar, tobacco and hops (WT/TPR/S/214, 
p 75 para 128).   
 
What is the EC doing to transfer remaining c oupled support to decoupled programs, including the 
Single Payment Scheme and Single Area Payment Scheme? 
What are these "other aid" schemes, particularly in relation to milk? 
How do these coupled "other aid" schemes operate, particularly for milk? How are these schemes implemented at a Member-State level?  Are there any limits on payments to each farmer?   Answer
 
For the description of these sch emes the EC refers to notifications G/AG/N/EEC/58 and 
G/AG/N/EEC/17. Most of the coupled support described in those notifications has now been 
decoupled under the decisions of the Health Check (Regulation 73/2009).  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 113 
 
 
 (ii) State-trading and state-owned enterprises 
 
Question 18 
Australia notes that state-owned enterprises with m onopolies or exclusive rights exist in certain EC 
Member States, including in relation to distribu ting alcoholic beverages, gas and electricity.  
However, during the period of review the EC has made no notifications to the WTO regarding state-
trading enterprises (WT/TPR/S/214, p 77 para 140).   Can the EC indicate when it will provide WTO Members the opportunity to review its state-trading enterprise notification for 2008?  
 
Answer
 
The EC has not notified any newly created or extended state-trading enterprises for 2008 since in that 
year the Member States did not create or extend any existing state-owned monopolies.  
(iv) Intellectual property rights (IPR) 
 Question 19 
Australia notes the recent amendments to the EC’s system for the protection of geographical 
indications (GIs) (WT/TPR/S/214, p 75, paras 194-195). The EC states that one out of the 818 names protected by the agricultural products and foods tuffs register, and two out of the 2,127 names 
protected by the wine and spirits GI register, are third-country names. 
 Is the EC able to explain why such a limited number  of third country names are protected under this 
system?  
 
Answer
 
From the moment that an application for protec tion of a third country name has been received, the 
Commission examines such application. So far, fe w applications from third countries have been 
received; none have been rejected.  IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(1) INTRODUCTION  
Question 20 
Australia notes that EU reform of the CAP has been  moving in the right direction but in 2006, CAP 
still accounted for 46% of Community expenditure (WT/TPR/S/214, p 96 para 2).  
 
Given the negative impact of the financial crisis on growth and jobs, what pressures are there within 
the EU for expenditure to shift from CAP to  other priorities in the next EU Budget? 
 
Answer
 
This question goes beyond clarifications required for the WTO Trade Poli cy Review. This is a 
political issue internal to the EU, and irrelevant to the WTO relevance of the policy (it is not the EU 
budget, but total budgetary expenditure that counts).   
 
(2) AGRICULTURE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES 
(i) Main Features 
 
Question 21 
Australia notes that "Among the arable crops (cerea ls, rapeseed and sugar beet), there have been  
significant – partly policy-induced – shifts in the crops areas in recent years. The area planted with WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 114  
 
 rapeseed increased by 31 .5% in 2007 compared with the aver age area in 2002–06, while the sugar 
beet area decreased by almost 13%" (WT/TPR/S/214, p97 para 6).  Can the EC provide information on the policy measur es that have induced the shifts in crop areas? 
What other factors have contributed to the shift in crop areas?  Answer
 
The increase in oilseeds ar ea in the EU has been due to a combination of raising internal demand, 
international favourable situation for vegetable oils  and the relative decrease of other crop area due 
to agricultural reform. 
 
Concerning sugar, the reform of the regime decided by the Council in 2005 has induced a significant reduction of production (about minus 6 million tonnes of sugar), which explains the decrease of sugar 
beet area.  
Question 22 Any assistance to offset costs of the European Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) to European farmers 
would make the global playing field more uneven.  Does the EC have offsets for its farm sector in mind?  
If so, what consideration has been given to impacts on third countries?  
 Answer
 
Agriculture is not part of the EU Emissions Tradi ng Scheme (ETS). Agriculture along with transport, 
buildings or waste is subject to  a global reduction target for all these sectors (-10% compared to 
2005) detailed in the recently approved "Effort sharing" Decision.  
(http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/ pdf/draft_proposal_effort_sharing.pdf). 
 (ii) Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)  
(a) Overview  Question 23 
Australia notes that support tied to the production of specific commodities is as high as 40-50 % of 
producer revenues for sugar and meat (except pig meat) (WT/TPR/S/214, p. 99, para 11) based on OECD Single Commodity Transfers (SCTs), with 80-100% made up of price support.  What steps, if any, is the EC taking to dec ouple payment from production for these key agricultural 
products?  What steps are being taken to reduce th e reliance on price support — one of the most trade-
distorting forms of domestic support? 
 
Answer
 
There is no and there has never been coupled direct payments in relation to sugar.  
 
Meat:  as a result of the Health Check, coupled direct  payments in relation to meat production will be 
abolished by 2012 at the latest, with 2 exceptions (suckler cows and sheep and goat) related to the 
specific contribution of these 2 sectors in mainta ining agricultural activiti es in disadvantaged and 
fragile areas.  
In relation to price support: 
 
 Sugar 
In 2006, the EC introduced a reform in the sugar sector, with a 4-year transition period (2006-2010). The objective of the reform includes a drastic price reduction (-36%) which will  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 115 
 
 
 bring EU market prices closer to world prices and will reduce the level of price support.  In 
January 2009, the EU market price has already been reduced by nearly one third of the 
targeted reduction. The price reduction resu lts from the relaxation of price support 
mechanisms, in particular the end of public intervention and export refunds. Further price 
reduction will be driven by preferential im ports from less developed countries and from 
African Caribbean and Pacific countries which will enjoy duty and quota free access to the 
EC as from October 2009.  
Meat For the meat sectors, market support measures ha ve only be used during periods of particularly 
difficult market circumstances. In practice, these me asures have been limited to the application for a 
limited period of private storage aid in the pigmeat s ector, as well as some refunds for the export of a 
limited number of products.  Question 24 
Australia notes that the EC’s commitments with respect to agricultural market access, domestic 
support and export subsidies, to re flect the enlargement from 12 to 27 Member States, has not yet 
formally been agreed in the WTO and consolid ated in the EC’s Schedule (WT/TPR/S/214, p 101 
para 14).  Since there has been no multilateral process to agree on the proposed changes to Part IV of the EC 
Schedule and to consider the status of the schedules of the new member states, can the EC clarify 
when it will commence formal multilateral verification procedures (similar to those that have been 
commenced in regard to EC-15 enlargement)? Does the EC intend to submit a formal proposal  to the WTO membership, and if so, when? 
Further, does the EC intend to revise its export su bsidy notifications for these years once Part IV has 
been finalised through a multilateral process, and if so, when? 
 
Answer
 
(1) and (2) Once that Australia, together with US, Canada and NZ, have agreed a text with the EC to overcome the legal vacuum concerning mod ification of Part IV commitments resulting from 
enlargement of a customs union, i. e. the enlargement from EC-12 to EC-15, we expect that these 
Members will lift their respective reservations on the EC-15 schedule so that the EC will finally have 
its EC-15 schedule certified. Once this step has b een taken, the EC will then proceed with the 
preparation of an EC-25 schedule and - later - with an EC-27 schedule.  (3) As yet, the EC does not consider revising its notification. 
 
Question 25 
Australia notes that funds are distributed under the s econd CAP pillar, Rural Development, in order to 
(i) improve the competitiveness of agriculture and fo restry by supporting restructuring, development, 
and innovation; (ii) improve the environment and countryside by supporting land management; and 
(iii) improve the quality of life in rural areas a nd encouraging diversifica tion of economic activity 
(WT/TPR/214, p 102 footnote 15). 
 Is the EC using rural development funds to s upport farming businesses that would be commercially 
unviable without these subsidies?  Are rural developm ent payments subject to verification of a farm’s 
longer-term commercial viability? 
What steps has the EC taken to evaluate the im pact of rural development payments on trade? 
 
Answer
 
(1) Rural development measures serve the aim of  further modernisation of production by 
encouraging farmers also to structural chan ges, resulting primarily in quality and business WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 116  
 
 performance improvement. In order to boost effic iency and competitiveness, which are at the very 
basis of economic viability, funds are targeted so as to find a reasonable balance between farm 
viability, environmental protection, and the soci al dimension of rural development. Support for 
innovation, in particular in its specific meaning of  providing new responses to the specific problems 
of rural areas, plays a key role in enhancing th e performance, and therefore the economic viability, of 
farming businesses.  
In the particular case of Less Favoured Areas, th e viability of many communities is still dependent on 
the viability of farming and LFA payments are contributing to overcome the comparative 
disadvantage of farming in these areas. In some instances, i.e. setting up of young farmers and development of semi-subsistence farms into 
economically viable holdings in new Member States,  support is conditional on the establishment of a 
business plan as an instrument to ensure over ti me the development of the activities of the new 
agricultural holding or the achievement of the rest ructuring targets. Funding for early retirement is 
also very relevant for earlier transfer of holdings a nd subsequent improvement of viability of farm 
businesses. 
The Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework (C MEF) is the key instrument available to 
Members States to assess the ext ent to which the objectives of improving competitiveness and 
economic growth are being met. The CMEF will help  assess the effects of allocated public sources 
and secure the sustainability of interventions. The lis t of the Common Evaluation Questions for the 
assessment of the effectiveness, efficiency and rel evance of the rural development programmes co-
funded by the EU is available at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/ rur/eval/evalquest/b_en.pdf (programming period 2000-2006) and 
http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rurdev/eval/ guidance/note_b_en.pdf (programming period 2007-
2013).  (2) The (mid-term and ex-post) evaluations of rural development progra mmes are structured 
around a number of Common Evaluation Questions defin ed by the Commission to assess the impacts 
of the rural development measures against their respective expected objectives. Since none of the 
Community-funded rural development measures sp ecifically targets trade issues, no Common 
Evaluation Questions have been defined to a ssess the impact of rural development programmes on 
trade. The EU rural development measures meet the relevant provisions of Annex 2 of the Agreement 
on Agriculture. 
 
Question 26 
Australia notes that ‘least-favoured  areas’ eligible for rural deve lopment payments (WT/TPR/S/214, 
p 102, para 15) now cover some 56 % of the EC’s total agricultural area (CAP Monitor, Agra Europe, 
Chapter 16.5 
 
When does the EC intend to finalise its re-evalu ation of the criteria for ‘least-favoured areas’? 
Does the EC intend to reduce the percentage of agricultural area deemed ‘least-favoured’? 
What is the impact of ‘least-favoured ar ea’ payments on the EC’s trade flows?   
 
Answer
 
(1) A legislative proposal will only be prepared  after taking into account Member States detailed 
impact analysis of the indicator approach and following detailed analysis by the Commission services. MS are expected to return t est results by the end of 2009.  
 (2) The basis of the new LFA designation is sound  scientific evidence of the presence of natural 
handicaps and taking into account the differences of  agriculture in the territory of the EU27. Where 
these handicaps are identified as manifest and a hindrance to agricultural production these areas 
shall be deemed to be naturally handicapped.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 117 
 
 
 (3) The LFA measure is not aimed at supporting or  influencing trade nor is it a market distorting 
mechanism, it is a scheme embedded in Axis 2 of the Rural Development Regulation which has as its 
objective the 'protection of the environment and the maintenance of land management.  Question 27 
Australia notes that under the current "cross-compliance" rules, aid to farmers is linked to the respect 
of environmental, animal welfare, and food quality standards.  Australia also notes that, following the 
Health Check, these rules are to be simplified, by  withdrawing standards and requirements relating to 
water management will be introduced  (WT/TPR/S/214, p103 para 20). 
 
What EC audit processes are in plac e to ensure that aid to farmers is actually used with respect of 
environmental, animal welfare, and food quality standards? On what basis is the EC to determine cha nges to standards, including their withdrawal? 
Can the EC provide information on the water mana gement requirements that will be introduced?  
 Answer
 
(1) The controls of cross compliance are primarily under the responsibility of Member 
States. Notwithstanding these controls, the Commissi on carries out audits of Member States' control 
systems in the framework of an annual audit programme.  
(2) The scope of cross compliance (statuto ry management requirements -SMR- and good 
agricultural and environmental condition -GAEC-) was modified to better target it to farming activity 
and farmers' responsibility. The review of the sche me took place in the context of an Impact 
Assessment.   
(3) Two new GAEC standards were introduced: (1 ) establishment of buffer strips along courses 
and (2) Where use of water for irrigation is subject  to authorisation, compliance with authorisation 
procedures.    (b) Policies on selected product groups 
Cereals  
Question 28 
Australia notes that tariffs on common wheat, durum wheat, rye, maize, sorghum, millet and 
buckwheat have been suspended until 30 J une 2009 (WT/TPR/S/214, p 104, para 27).  
 For what reason was the suspension implemented? Is the EC planning to extend the suspension after 30 June 2009?  Answer
 
The customs duties on imports of durum wheat, co mmon wheat, rye, barley, maize and sorghum were 
suspended from the beginning of January 2008 until  the end of October 2008. The customs duties on 
imports of millet and buckwheat were suspended from  1 July 2008 until the end of October 2008.  
 
The reasons for this suspension are pointed out in recitals n° (4), (5) and (6) of Regulation 1/2008 
(OJ L 1 of  4.1.2008), namely modest EU harvest in 2007, pressure on internal prices and need to 
respond to this situation of tensi ons by promoting the supply of cereals to the Community market.   
 
Livestock and meat 
 
Question 29 
Australia notes Table IV.6 (WT/TPR/S/214, p 105) in cludes a reference to definition "pig carcasses of 
standard quality". WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 118  
 
 Can the EC provide guidance on what is included in the definition "pig carcasses of standard quality"? 
 
Answer
 
The standard quality is defined in terms of the weight and lean-meat content of pig carcasses. The details on this definition are given in Annex V to Regulation (EC) No. 1234/2007. 
 
Question 30 
Australia notes that the Secretariat’s report states that enlargement to 27 member states has had a 
significant effect on EC sheep and goat meat production (WT/TPR/S/214, p108 para 39), but the 
report does not comment on the effect of enlargement on pigmeat production. 
 
Can the EC provide details of the effect s of enlargement on pigmeat production?  
Can the EC advise the level of coupled support that pigmeat producers in each member state received in each of the years 2006 and 2007? What is the EC timetable for plans to reduce this support?  
 
Answer
 
 
• The EU enlargement has increased the EU pig production by around 20%. 
• There are no direct payments (coupled or decoupled) in the pigmeat sector. 
• This question is obsolete. 
 Question 31 
Australia notes that the EU markets for livestock,  including beef and veal, sheep meat, and poultry 
meat, remain amongst the most heavily protected subsectors in agriculture WT/TPR/S/214, p108 para 39).  Can the EC provide a timetable and work plans for reduced support levels for the beef and veal and 
sheep meat sectors? 
 
Answer
 
Pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No. 73/2009, the payments related to the special premium and the slaughter premium for bovine animals shall be integrated into the single payment scheme from 
2012 at the latest. The payments for the suckler co ws shall be integrated into the Single Payment 
Scheme from 2010 where Member States decide not to continue granting them as coupled payments. 
Where Member States decide to grant them as coupled  payments, they may decide to set the part of 
the component of their national ceiling to be used  for these payments at a lower level than that 
decided in the previous period.  The sheep and goat payments shall be integrated  into the Single Payment Scheme from 2010 where 
Member States decide not to continue granting th em as coupled payments. Where Member States 
decide to continue granting them as coupled pa yments, they may decide to set the part of the 
component of their national ceiling to be used for these payments at a lower level than that decided in the previous period.      Question 32 
Australia notes that export subsidies and private stor age measures are available in respect of pigmeat 
and pig meat in general remains a protected subsector  in agriculture, despite  under the Health Check 
intervention having been abolished for pig meat (paragraph 39 of WT/TPR/S/214, p109 para 39). 
 Can the EC provide a timetable and work pl ans for reduced support levels for pig meat? 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 119 
 
 
 Answer  
For the pigmeat sector, only a limited number of mar ket support measures are available (i.e. private 
storage aid and export refunds). It should be st ressed that these measures have in recent years only 
been applied temporarily in cases of particular ly difficult market circumstances. Under normal 
market circumstances, export refunds are generally only available fo r a limited number of specifc 
products in the pigmeat sector.  
Dairy products 
 
Question 33 
Australia notes that the EC reintroduced export subs idies for skim milk powder, whole milk powder, 
butter and cheese in January 2009 (WT/TPR/S/214, p 109 para 43).  Has the EC undertaken any assessment of the effect  that these dairy refunds are having on global 
dairy prices, including by helping to prolong the current downturn in international prices?How long 
will EU dairy export subsidies stay in place? 
In the meantime, will the EC provide an assurance that it will not increase the volume or level of dairy export subsidies as currently set, to avoid worsening the underlying problem of low world dairy prices? If not, why? 
 
Answer
 
(1) The EC has noted that world market pr ices of powders have increased since 16 February 
2009 and that cheese and butter prices have remained stable.  (2) It is a temporary measure, without a pre-defined time.  
(3) The EU sets export refunds within the vo lumes and outlays agreed in the Uruguay Round and 
guarantees that it will not go beyond those limits. Th e underlying problem of oversupply of milk on 
the world market is not primarily caused by the EU. EU milk production has reduced by 0.5% in 
2008-2009, while production has increased, in some cases substantially, in other milk producing 
countries delivering to the world market.  
Question 34 Since April 2008, Australia notes that the EC ha s increased dairy production quotas and market 
intervention measures, as well as re-introducing export refunds (WT/TPR/S/214, p 109 para 43).  
Australia notes that these measures would be exp ected to encourage production and support domestic 
producer prices, but without increasing domestic consumption.  As a result, EU dairy export refunds 
will add additional downwards pressure  on international dairy prices. 
 In the context of the dairy sector, could the EC explain how increased production quotas, market intervention measures and export subsidies c ontribute to a more market-oriented CAP?  
 
Answer
 
In order to move from a policy where produced quant ities were driven by quota levels to a situation in 
which production is driven by market demand, it wa s decided to increase quotas by 1% from 2009 to 
2013, thereby making quota less and less relevant for farmers' production decisions. At the same time 
market support measures have been reduced. Interve ntion for butter and SMP is limited and bought in 
at lower prices, internal disposal measures for butter are abolished and private storage aid for cheese 
and skimmed milk powder is abolished.  The support measures now only serve as a short term safety-
net above which the sector itself will need to balance supply with demand in order to restore prices to 
more remunerative levels.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 120  
 
 (5) SERVICES 
(i) Overview  
 
Question 35 
The EC is working towards the creation of an intern al market in services by the end of 2009.  Progress 
has been made in telecoms, postal and financial se rvices and there is an action plan for transport 
(WT/TPR/S/214, pp 133-134, paras110-112).   
 Are there plans to bring other sectors under a comprehensive internal market policy? 
 
Answer
 
The Services Directive , adopted on 12 December 2006, shall make significant progress towards a 
genuine internal market for services. The Service s Directive will have to be implemented by all 
Member States by 28 December 2009. The Services Directive covers all services, except for those 
explicitly excluded from its scope. Services exclude d from the scope of the Services Directive are 
financial services, electronic communication services and networks; transport services; services of 
temporary work agencies; healthcare and pha rmaceutical services; audiovisual and radio 
broadcasting services; gambling activities; certain social services; private security services; and 
services by notaries and bailiffs appointed by an official act of government. The reason for the 
exclusion of some of these services is that they have already been liberalized by other EU rules 
(telecommunications, financial services). As a resu lt, after the implementation of the Services 
Directive most service sectors of the economy will have to  comply with the rules laid down in this 
Directive.  The Commission does not have any concrete plan yet to bring those sectors excluded from the Services Directive and not liberalized by other EU rules under a comprehensive internal market 
policy. In any event, service activities are always subject to the EC Treaty rules. 
 
When does the EU expect to finalise its proposed tel ecoms package that is intended to strengthen the 
internal market for telecoms?  
Answer
 
The next step for the EU Telecoms Package is now  a vote in second reading in the plenary of the 
European Parliament (expected in April); in th e meantime informal "trilogue meetings" between 
European Parliament, Commission and Council are ongoing.  The Reform of the EU Telecom Package 
is scheduled to be completed in June 2009 with its adoption by the Council.  
 
The adoption of the revised regulatory framework in  the Member States will depend on the speed of 
the legislative process there, but the Commission is hopeful that it could become effective from 2010. 
 The process can be followed at:  http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/ policy/ecomm/tomorrow/ next/index_en.htm 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindB yProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2007/0247 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindB yProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2007/0248 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindB yProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2007/0249 
 
What authority will the EC have in respect of the proposed European Telecoms Regulators’ Group 
(GERI)? 
 
Answer
 
The European institutions are negotiating to establis h by Regulation a "Body of European Regulators 
for electronic communications (BEREC)", composed of the national regulators from the 27 Member States of the European Union, and an Office to provide professional and administrative support to  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 121 
 
 
 BEREC. BEREC will provide the European Commissi on and the national regulators with expert 
advice in a full range of activities where European consistency is needed and will be the exclusive 
forum for cooperation among national regulators from the 27 Member States and between those and the Commission. It will also serve as a body for reflection, debate and advice for the European 
institutions with the objective of developing furt her the European internal market in electronic 
communication network and services.   
 
What would the EC have in respect of measures ap plied by national regulators and remedies available 
to it?   Answer
 
In its proposals which followed the review of the EU regulatory framework for electronic 
communications, the European Commission proposed that it should have the power to require the withdrawal or amendment of remedies proposed by  a national regulator, where it considered that the 
remedies concerned would create a barrier to the si ngle market or be contrary to Community law. 
This power would complement the equivalent  power which the Commission already possesses in 
relation to regulators' draft measures defining th e relevant markets which are susceptible to ex ante 
regulation and making findings as to the existen ce of significant market power in those markets. 
This remains one of the issues which are still unde r debate between the Commission, the European 
Parliament and the Council in the legislative pro cess leading to the adoption of the revised regulatory 
framework. It is not possible at this point to pred ict what will be the precise outcome of this debate. 
 
CHINESE TAIPEI I
 
 
On the Reports by the EC (WT/TPR/G/214) and the WTO Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/214) 
 
I. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT (1) MAIN CHARACTERISTICS 
(S/214, page 3, paragraph 6, and page 13, paragraph 24) 
 II. KEY DEVELOPMENT IN THE EC 
(3) ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE AND CHALLENGES AHEAD 
(G/214, page 10, paragraph 27)  
III. KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EC’S TRADE POLICY (2007-08) 
(3) CREATING THE RIGHT ENVIRONMENT FOR TRADE (G/214, page 14, paragraph 45)  
 
Question 1 
The EC’s Lisbon Strategy is mentioned only briefly here within the WTO Secretariat report, while the 
EC report states that the Lisbon Strategy has been  renewed for a cycle of 2008 to 2010, within which 
investing in knowledge and innovati on is one of the 4 priorities, bu t no detailed account is available. 
Also, the Secretariat report states that, in response to  the current financial crisis and global economic 
slowdown, the Commission proposed the European Economic Recovery Plan on 26 November, 2008.  In view of the limited nature of the above-menti oned available texts, could the EC please provide, for 
the benefit of Members, an explanation of how th e European Economic Recovery Plan would help to 
achieve the policy goals being set by th e renewed (2008-10) Lisbon Strategy?  
 
Answer
 
The Lisbon Strategy for growth and jobs has help ed to address structural weaknesses in the EU and 
contributed to a modernisation of the EU economy.  It remains the right framework in the current 
crisis as the challenges of globalisation, population ageing and climate change remain valid.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 122  
 
 Structural reforms undertaken since 2000, particular ly in macro-economic and employment policies, 
have helped the EU better to weather the storm and have created the fiscal space which can now be 
used for a co-ordinated financial impulse to su pport demand. In fact, the European Economic 
Recovery Plan combines a fiscal stimulus with an a cceleration of structural reforms in line with the 
Lisbon Strategy.  
In particular, the EERP called for a more focussed im plementation of the Lisbon strategy in a way 
that could also support the economy in the short te rm. This could be achieved by putting an emphasis 
on the following types of measures: directly  increasing demand through public investment
 and 
modernisation of infrastructure, also with a vi ew of improving EU energy efficiency and knowledge 
base; improving adjustment capacity in the labour market  through active labour market policies and 
training, as well as implementation of the fl exicurity principles; supporting companies and SMEs , 
including through reduced administrative burden;  targeted support for the most vulnerable 
households  in order to help sustaining disposable incomes.  
 It the Communication 'Driving European Recovery'
25, the Commission has presented a preliminary 
assessment of the short term measures undertaken by Member States. It appears that most short-term  
structural measures are consistent with the long er term objectives identified in the country-specific 
recommendations under the Lisbon strategy.   Finally, the Commission believes that the crisis sh ould be seen as an opportunity to increase the 
momentum for important reforms, in particular  those supporting competitiveness and adjustment 
capacity. The lessons of the crisis will have to be ta ken into account in renewing the EU structural 
reform agenda beyond 2010.   
 On the Report by the WTO Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/214)   
I. ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT 
(3) TRADE AND INVESTMENT (page 12, paragraph 1) 
 
Question 2 
In 2006, the EC-27 accounted for 40.7% of global inward FDI stock and 51.5% of global outward 
stock. Most of the new Member States have remain ed net FDI recipients, although the FDI outflows 
of many of these States have grown considerably since 2005. 
In general, global inward FDI has been shrinking un der the effects of the global financial crisis and 
economic downturn. We would be interested in kn owing whether the said new Member States have 
adopted any policies aimed at encouraging inward FD I, and if so, of what do these policies consist?  
 
Answer
 
Although the EC creates a common legal framework fo r free movement of capital between the EC and 
third countries, including foreign direct investments,  promotion of investment s continues to be the 
competence of Member States. The Commissi on neither coordinates nor monitors investment 
promotion policies implemented by Member States.  However Member States are directly responsible 
for ensuring that these policies are applied in accor dance with EU legislation, especially competition 
and state aid rules, which if not obeyed by could be invoked by the Commission in relevant 
infringement procedures. 
 
                                                      
 25 http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/president/pdf/press_20090304_annx_en.pdf.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 123 
 
 
 II. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
(3)  TRADE POLICY OBJECTIVES (page 18, paragraph 18) 
 
Question 3 
It is noted that the EC seeks to improve the free movement of goods, services, capital and labour 
within the Community through its Single Market Policy, but the single market is not yet a reality in all 
areas.  For example, markets are still fragmented in retail financial services, public procurement, 
transport, energy, intellectual property and telecommuni cations.  The footnote on the same page in the 
report also notes that further liberalization measures  are to be adopted in areas such as transport, 
energy and telecommunications. Given the above, could the EC please provide mo re detailed information on its future plans for 
regulatory measures and actions to achieve a single market in the above-mentioned areas, especially 
in the sectors of transport, energy and telecommunications? 
 
Answer
 
Telecommunications  
Recent initiatives by the European Commission aim to  build a competitive digital Europe on the 
foundations of a functioning Internal Market for telecommunications. In this context sound policies 
and properly-tailored regulation represent the two p illars of European Commission action. It is a 
major EU policy objective to accelerate the transition toward an open, technology neutral and 
competitive digital economy in Eu rope while ensuring that a c oherent approach is pursued by 
national regulators across the EU.  
The proposals tabled by the Commission to revi ew the existing EU Regulatory Framework for 
electronic communications networks and services represent a key initiative in this area. These 
proposals are now under the scrutiny (Second Reading) of the European Parliament and the Council.  
 The new framework is designed to update and stre ngthen the existing regulatory framework in three 
main areas: 
 1. Providing for better regulation of the EU electronic communications sector, by simplifying 
and streamlining the regulatory environment . This is achieved inter alia by strengthening the 
independence and enforcement powers of national regul atory authorities and clarifying the principles 
applying to appeals against their decisions, as we ll as by updating the regulatory principles which 
guide them (for example to take fuller account of market developments such as investment in Next 
Generation Access networks - NGAs). With regar d to radio spectrum, the proposals establish a 
strategic policy regarding spectrum use in electr onic communications. They also aim to reduce the 
barriers to the single market by establishing service and technology neutrality as the basic principles 
for spectrum regulation, thus enabling better se rvices through a more flexible use. In addition the 
coordinated introduction of tradability in spec ific spectrum bands can be adopted on an EU-wide 
basis.  2. Facilitating the completion of the single market for electronic communications by 
strengthening the tools available to ensure consistency
 in the application of the rules across the EU. 
This is done in particular through the establishm ent of an independent body of regulators in 
electronic communications, which will combine the knowledge and experience of the national 
regulators and provide expert advice to the Commission and individual national regulatory authorities where needed. The co-ordination an d consultation mechanisms applicable to the 
imposition of ex ante regulatory obligations are also strengthened, for example by conferring 
additional powers on the Commission to address ca ses where national measures would create a 
barrier to the single market.  
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 124  
 
 3. Enhancing consumer protecti on and strengthening user rights
, by improving the security of 
electronic communications and users' privacy, by making number portability speedier and more 
efficient, and by promo ting a high quality of service and unobs tructed access to digital and online 
content. The reform proposals are also designed to ensure that users with disabilities, elderly users 
and people with special needs have better acce ss to electronic communications services. 
 
In particular, the revised framework is intende d to make sure that, as NGAs are deployed, 
competition bottlenecks can be removed, by securing adequate access, a level playing field and the 
consistent application of the rules across all 27  Member States, without jeopardizing incentives to 
invest for any market players. In this context, the Commission is working on a Recommendation on 
regulated access to (NGAs).  
 Following a public consultation, the Commission is currently in the process of reviewing the draft 
Recommendation, taking due account of the submissi ons and comments received, but also of the most 
up-to-date technical studies and the most recent devel opments in the market. The adoption of the final 
proposal is scheduled for this year. With the Recommendation on regulated access to (NGAs) the 
European Commission clearly aims at ensuring an appropriate balance be tween both investment and 
competition imperatives, and ultimately between in frastructure-based and service-based competition.  
 Transport Transport is essential for Europe’s prosperity and for free movement of citizens and goods and is one 
of the Community's common policies. Therefore, comp etition and state aid rules to firms in the rail, 
road and inland waterway transport sectors were already introduced at the beginning of the 
European integration. One of the principal aims of European transport policy is to complete the 
internal market.   
In the last years the Commission has been  very active in restructuring the European rail 
transport market . Commission efforts have concentrated  on opening of the rail transport 
market to competition within and between Member States. The First Railway Package 
Directives aimed at increasing international rail transport of freight by setting clear rules on how railway undertakings can obtain licences and safety certificates, the framework for the allocation and charging of rail infrastruc ture capacity, the role and responsibility of 
Regulatory Bodies in the Member States and the se paration of accounts for subsidised and non-
subsidised activities. The Second Railway Package  implemented a full opening of the market for 
international freight by rail as of 1.1.2006 an d of the domestic rail freight markets by 1 January 
2007. The Third Railway Package  of 2007 foresees an opening of international rail passenger 
transport by 2010. 
 
The existing legislation applying to road transport services  establishes common rules on access 
to the market and to the profession, sets minimal standards for working time, driving and rest periods, sets minimal annual vehicle taxes and co mmon rules for tolls and user charges. The 
Commission recognises that certain rules have to be made easier and clearer. 
 
Air transport has increase significantly during the last  years. This is largely due to the creation 
of a single market for aviation  in the 1990s. The internal ma rket has removed all commercial 
restrictions for airlines flying within the EU, su ch as restrictions on the routes, the number of 
flights or the setting of fares. All EU airlines may operate air services on any route within the EU. 
 
The Air Transport Agreement  "EU-US Open Skies: A new era in transatlantic aviation" took 
effect on 30 March 2008. For the first time, European airlines can fly without restrictions from any point in the EU to any point in the US. It  will bring more competition and cheaper flights to 
the biggest international air transport market. This agreement establishes closer cooperation  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 125 
 
 
 between the EU and the US to tackle new challenges,  such as security or the environment. This 
will facilitate the operations for airlines and airports and reduce hassle for passengers. 
 
The internal market for the provision of maritime transport services is of key importance for 
the performance of the European economy as a whole and for the quality of life and prosperity 
of maritime regions. Islands and peripheral regio ns are particularly dependant of maritime 
transport. The free provision of services in the maritime transport sector has opened markets 
and ensures that users of those services have a better choice and services are offered at good 
prices. However, maritime safety  can still be improved. With the adoption of the first two 
legislative packages on maritime safety (the  so-called ERIKA I and II packages), the EU 
delivered a strong message that substandard shipping would no longer be tolerated. 
 Following these packages, Commission, Council and the European Parliament are currently in the 
process of proposing and adopting the following measures: 
 
Regulation on the designation and operation of specific international rail freight corridors. 
 
First public consultation in the framework of the  Green Paper  "TEN-T : A policy review – 
Towards a better integrated trans-European tran sport network at the service of the common 
transport policy" has started. With the Green  Paper, the Commission initiates a broad review 
process of the trans-European tr ansport network policy (TEN-T). 
 
Proposal to recast the common ru les for access to the market of international carriage of 
goods by road  and international transport of persons by bus as well as access to the 
profession  of a road carrier . The key element is a clearer definition of carriage of goods (three 
cabotage operations after each international trip  overa 7-day period), the "12 day rule" for bus 
drivers (taking a day of rest after 12 days of driving), and an electronic register for licences. 
 
Directive on tolls and user charges for vehicles  (including Eurovignette) sets common rules on 
distance-related tolls and time-based user char ges for goods vehicles for the use of certain 
infrastructure. This improves the functioning of  the internal market through the approximation 
of the conditions of competition in the transport sector. 
 
The Single European Sky II (SES II)  proposal will amend existing regulations concerning Air 
Traffic Management (ATM). Whilst safety and c apacity are still major i ssues, the picture has 
become more varied with a greater emphasis on environment and cost efficiency. 
 
In its communication (2008) " Maritime Transport Strategy 2018 " the Commission presents the 
main strategic objectives for the European mar itime transport system up to 2018. The Strategy 
identifies key areas where action by the EU w ill strengthen the competitiveness of the sector 
while enhancing its environmental performance. 
 
The Commission has adopted proposals on passenger rights  in sea and inland waterway 
transport, and international coac h/bus transport in order to improve the attractiveness of and 
confidence in these transport modes as well as to  achieve a level playing field between carriers 
from different Member States and with other modes of transport. 
 
The establishment of a " European maritime transport space without barriers " helps to boost 
short sea services in all maritime regions. Th is concept would ensure a reduction of the 
administrative formalities, in particular custom s formalities that apply today to the intra-EU 
seaborne trades and that do not apply to similar road transport services. 
 
In addition, future proposals are planned in the following areas: WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 126  
 
 The discussion and reflection on the future of transport will prepare the grounds for a White 
Paper in 2010  which will set out a programme for the development of the Common Transport 
Policy.   
 
Recast of the first railway package legislation  to improve its quality and to simplify it. The 
provisions will be clarified to trigger more co mpetition, the competencies and the capacity of 
the national regulators will be enhanced, the c harging regime improved and access to railway 
facilities made easier.  
In addition to the measures aimed at completing the internal market, the EU is also proposing 
measures to improve road and maritime safety , to contribute to a cleaner, safer and more efficient 
transport system through Intelligent Transport Systems (ITS),  to implement the Galileo system , and 
to fund projects for co-modality . 
 
Energy  
In September 2007, the European Commission adopte d a third package of legislative proposals 
to ensure a real and effective choice of supplier and benefits to every single EU citizen. The package promotes sustainability by stimulati ng energy efficiency and guaranteeing that even 
smaller companies, for instance those that in vest in renewable energy,  have access to the 
energy market. A competiti ve market will also ensure greater security of supply, by improving 
the conditions for  investments in power plants and transmi ssion networks, and thus help avoid 
interruptions in power or gas supplies. Guar antees of fair competition with third country 
companies are also strengthened. To make the internal market work for all consumers whether large or  small, and to help the EU 
achieve more secure, competitive and sustainable energy, the Commission is proposing a number of measures to complement the existing rules.  
 
Separation of production and supply from tr ansmission networks: Network ownership and 
operation should be "unbundled". This refers to the separation between the network operation 
of electricity and gas from supply and generati on activities. The proposals made it clear that 
the Commission's preferred option in  this respect is ownership unbundling - in other words that 
a single company can no longer own both trans mission and be occupied in energy production 
or supply activities. In addition, the Commi ssion proposed a second option, the "independent 
system operator" which makes it possible for exis ting vertically integrated companies to retain 
network ownership, but provided that the assets are actually operated by  a company or body 
completely independent from it. Either one of these options will create new incentives for 
companies to invest in new infrastructure, inter-connection capacity and new generation 
capacity, thereby avoiding black-outs and unnecessary price surges.  
 The Commission recognized the strategic importanc e of Energy Policy. Therefore the package 
contains safeguards to ensure that in the even t that companies from third countries wish to 
acquire a significant interest or even control over an EU network, they will have to demonstrably and unequivocally comply with  the same unbundling requirements as EU 
companies. The Commission can intervene whe re a purchaser cannot demonstrate both its 
direct and indirect independence from supply and generation activities.  
 Facilitating cross-border energy trade: The Co mmission proposed to establish an Agency for 
the cooperation of National Energy Regulators, with binding decision powers, to complement 
National Regulators. This will ensure the prop er handling of cross-border cases and enable the 
EU to develop a real European network working as one single grid, promoting diversity and 
security of supply.    WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 127 
 
 
 More effective national regulators: the Commi ssion proposed measures to strengthen and 
guarantee the independence of national regulators in Member States.   Promoting cross border collaboration and investment: The Commission proposed a new European Network for Transmission System Opera tors. EU grid operators would cooperate 
and develop common commercial and technical cod es and security standards, as well as plan 
and coordinate the investments needed at EU le vel. This would also ease cross border trade 
and create a more level playing field for operators.   Greater transparency: Steps to improve market  transparency on network operation and supply 
will guarantee equal access to information, ma ke pricing more transparent, increase trust in 
the market and help avoid market manipulation.   Increased solidarity: by bringing national market s closer together, the Commission foresees 
more potential for Member States to assist one another in the face of energy supply threats. 
Following this package, the Council and the Europe an Parliament (await of the 2nd EP reading at 
this stage) are currently in the process of adopting the following binding measures: 
 
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Pa rliament and of the Council establishing an 
Agency for the Cooperation of Energy Regulators 
 
 
Proposal for a Directive of the European Par liament and of the Council amending Directive 
2003/55/EC concerning common rules for th e internal market in natural gas  
 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Par liament and of the Council amending Regulation 
(EC) No 1775/2005 on conditions for access to the natural gas transmission networks 
 
 
Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parl iament and of the Council Amending Regulation 
(EC) No 1228/2003 on conditions for access to  the network for cross-border exchanges in 
electricity  
 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(2) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
(vii) Contingency measures 
(page 52, paragraph 50)  
Question 4 
The EC launched public consultations on its trad e defence instruments in December 2006, but no 
agreement has been reached.  In the footnote on the sa me page in the report, it is further mentioned 
that these consultations relate mainly to questions  of transparency, accessibility and effectiveness.   
i) Could the EC please provide or direct us to de tailed information on the contents of these 
public consultations, such as the website contai ning any summaries or reports coming out of 
these consultations? 
ii) When would the EC expect the agreement to  be reached among its Member States, the 
European Parliament and business stakeholders?  Is there any specific timeline for finishing 
these public consultations, and proceeding to le gislation and implementation phases?  Would 
the EC invite its trading partners to comment before entering into such phases? 
 
Answer
 
 i) The public consultation launched by the EC on its trade defence instruments received 
  a large number of replies. The EC unde rtook a comprehensive analysis summarising 
  the responses to the consultation. This eva luation report is published on the website 
  of the Commission:   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 128  
 
  (http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/do cs/2007/november/tradoc_136846.pdf).  
  ii) In January 2008 the Trade Commissioner concluded that more reflection time is    needed to continue the Green Paper process. There is no specific timeline for  
  finishing these public consultations.   
 
(4) MEASURES AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND TRADE (i) Assistance and other incentives 
(page 73, paragraph 120, and page 74, paragraph 124)   
Question 5 
As indicated in the report, the EC  assistance and subsidies programme consists of  four categories and 
in the category of structural actions, there is th e European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 
(EAFRD). SAPARD and IPARD, however, the two pre-accession instruments for rural development, 
are mentioned here for the first time in the re port (and only on this page) without any clear 
explanations.   
i) Could the EC please advise what the acronyms SAPARD and IPARD stand for?  
ii) Could the EC please also describe the various relationships between SAPARD, IPARD, and 
the so-called IPA (Instrument for Pre-Acc ession Assistance) of the Common Agriculture 
Policy (CAP), as well as the aforementioned EAFRD? 
 
Answer
 
 i) SAPARD- Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development 
  IPARD- Instrument for Pre-Acces sion Assistance for Rural Development 
  ii) EAFRD- European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development  
  [Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural 
  development by the European Agricultu ral Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)] 
  This Regulation lays down the general rules governing Community support for rural 
  development, financed by the EAFRD, est ablished by Regulatio n (EC) No 1290/2005. 
  It also defines the aims of rura l development and the framework governing it. 
  The Fund will contribute to improving: the competitiveness of agriculture and    forestry; the environment and the countrysi de; the quality of life and the management 
  of economic activity in rural areas.  
  The Fund complements national, regional and local actions. The Commission and the   Member States are also to ensure that the Fund is consistent and compatible with   other Community support measures.  IPA- Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance 
The Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) is  the Community's financial instrument for the 
pre-accession process for the period 2007-2013. Assist ance is provided on the basis of the European 
Partnerships of the potential candidate countri es and the Accession Partnerships of the candidate 
countries, which means the Western Balkan countri es and Turkey. The IPA is intended as a flexible 
instrument and therefore provides assistance which depends on the progress made by the beneficiary 
countries and their needs as shown in the Commiss ion's evaluations and annual strategy papers.  
The beneficiary countries are divided into two cate gories, depending on their status as either 
candidate countries under the accession pro cess or potential candidate countries under the 
stabilisation and association process, namely: 
 - candidate countries: the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Croatia, Turkey;   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 129 
 
 
 - potential candidate countries as defined at the Santa Maria da Feira European Council of 20 
June 2000: Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Mont enegro, Serbia including Kosovo as defined 
by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244.   
Exceptionally, and in the interests of coherence and efficiency, other countries may benefit from 
measures financed under the IPA provided these measures form part of a regional, cross-border, 
trans-national or worldwide framework and do not duplicate other programmes under Community 
external aid instruments.   The IPA was designed so as to address the needs of  the beneficiary countries within the context of 
pre-accession in the most appropriate way. Its main aim is to support instituti on-building and the rule 
of law, human rights, including the fundamenta l freedoms, minority rights, gender equality and non-
discrimination, both administrative and economic  reforms, economic and social development, 
reconciliation and reconstruc tion, and regional and cross-border cooperation. 
IPA is made up of five components: the "support for transition and institution-building" component, 
aimed at financing capacity-building and instit ution-building; the "cross-border cooperation" 
component, aimed at supporting the beneficiary count ries in the area of cross-border cooperation 
between themselves, with the Member States or within the framework of cross-border or inter-
regional actions.   The other three components are aimed at candi date countries only: the "regional development" 
component, aimed at supporting the countries' p reparations for the implementation of the 
Community's cohesion policy, and in particular for the Europe an Regional Development Fund and 
the Cohesion Fund; the "human resources developmen t" component, which concerns preparation for 
cohesion policy and the European Social Fund; the "rural development" component, which concerns 
preparation for the common agricultural policy and related policies and for the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development. 
 The IPA will replace, as from 1 January 200 7, the programmes for the period 2000-2006: 
 - the programmes for candidate countries: P hare, SAPARD and ISPA, Phare Cross-Border 
Cooperation (CBC) and Coordination, pre-accession financial assistance for Turkey;  
- the programmes for potential candidate countries: CARDS.   
SAPARD and IPARD: 
During 2000-2006, SAPARD was the rural development p re-accession instrument used to assist the 
ten countries that became new Members of the European Community in 2004. The programme has 
elapsed in seven of the new Member States, and a ssistance is currently being finalized in Bulgaria, 
Croatia, Latvia, and Romania.   Under a new pre-accession instrument implemen ted by the Commission, the rural development 
component- IPARD, is used to finance rural d evelopment programmes in the three new official 
candidate countries Turkey, Croatia, and FYROM. Th e aim of the SAPARD and IPARD programmes 
is to support acceding countries in their prepara tions for implementation and management of the 
CAP, and to contribute to the sustainable developm ent of the agriculture se ctor and rural areas in 
these countries. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 130  
 
 CHINESE TAIPEI II
 
 
WTO Secretariat Repo rt (WT/TPR/S/214)  
 
III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(2) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
(viii) Technical regulations and other technical requirements 
(page 56, paragraph 63)   
 
Question 1 
According to Article 13(4) of the REACH Regulat ions, the EC requires that eco-toxicological and 
toxicological tests and analyses be carried out in  compliance with the principles of good laboratory 
practice provided for in Directive 2004/10/EC or other international standards recognized as being 
equivalent by the Commission or the Agency.   i) Does the above imply that OECD GLP accredited laboratories are not the only option? If so, 
could the EC please elaborate further on what alte rnatives are available for the laboratories that 
wish to be accredited? 
ii) Moreover, for the purpose of REACH registration,  could the EC please provide cases or examples 
of laboratories that are not OECD GLP accredited, but are accredited in some other way that is 
acceptable to the EC? 
 
Answer
 
As stated by the delegation of Chinese Taipei, REACH requires that toxicological and 
ecotoxicological tests used for th e purposes of registration under REAC H must be in compliance with 
Directive 2004/10 or with other international standar ds that are recognised as being equivalent by 
the Commission or the European Chemicals Agency. In this regard, it is noted that the Community is 
part of the OECD's Decisions on Mutual Recognition of Data and GLP, and that Directive 2004/10/EC implements this in the Community. It follows that tests conducted in 
accordance with the OECD test guidelines and by test  facilities that are in compliance with GLP are 
also recognised as being in accordance with Di rective 2004/10, regardless of the place where they 
have been conducted. At present, neither the Co mmission nor the Agency have recognised any other 
additional international standard as being equivalent . In addition, it should also be noted that 
existing data from experiments that are not carried out in accordance with GLP may be used under 
the conditions laid down in Section 1.1 of Annex XI of REACH. 
 
(ix) Government procurement (page 65 and 67, paragraphs 95 and 101) 
 
Question 2 
We note from the report of the Secretariat that pub lic procurement in the EC in 2006 corresponded to 
16% of the EC’s GDP.   As the EC is also a signatory to the Agreem ent on Government Procurement (GPA) and has 
thresholds under its GPA commitm ents, we would appreciate knowi ng approximately what proportion 
per year of the EU’s government pr ocurement is applicable to GPA? 
 Answer
 
The EU wishes to clarify that the thresholds specified in Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC as 
the same under the EC's commitments in the GPA.   The overall value of the EU procurement open to its GPA partners amounted to 312 billion EUR in 
2007 out of a total of 370 billion EURO published in the Official Jour nal of the European Union (e.g 
procurement covered by the EU directives).   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 131 
 
 
 (4) MEASURES AFFECTING PRODUCTION AND TRADE 
(i) Assistance and other incentives (page 73, paragraph 119 & p age 76, paragraphs 135~138) 
 
Question 3 
The EC uses measures in its industrial programmes (EIP and CIP) to assist European enterprises, 
especially small-to-medium sized businesses in order to improve their innovation capabilities. 
i) Regarding the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (EIP) under the Competitiveness and 
Innovation Framework Programme (CIP), could the EC please explain how the measure is 
implemented for European businesses? For example,  what is the average funding level (%) in 
each case and what criteria are applied in deciding whether or not a business qualifies? 
ii) For the three programmes under the CIP - the Entr epreneurship and Innovation Programme (EIP), 
the ICT Policy Support Programme (ICTPSP), and the Intelligent Energy-Europe Programme 
(IEE) - does the EC use the funding measures to support specific industries in the private sector, 
for policy purposes? If yes, how are these measures implemented? 
 Answer
 
i) The implementation of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP), 
running from 2007 to 2013, follo ws strictly its legal basis26. The CIP has a budget for the period 
2007-2013 of EUR 3.6 billion.  
 The EIP has a budget for the period 2007-2013 of less than EUR 2.2 billion. The EIP targets 
particularly Small and Medium Sized Enterprises. De pending on the area of action, SMEs may benefit 
either directly (from improved access to finan ce via financial instruments, from business and 
innovation services or from participating in pilo t and market replication projects) or indirectly 
through policy support measures underpinning policies that aim to improve framework conditions for 
doing business. The CIP legal basis states t hat the EIP has the following objectives:  
  Article 10: Establishment and objectives 
 1. The Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme in support of enterprise,   particularly SMEs, entrepreneurship, innovation, including eco-innovation   and industrial competitiveness is hereby established. 
 2. The Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme shall provide for action to 
  support, improve, encourage and promote: 
 (a) access to finance for the start- up and growth of SMEs and investment 
  in innovation activities; 
 (b) the creation of an environment favourable to SME cooperation,  
  particularly in the field of cross-border cooperation; 
 (c) all forms of innovation in enterprises;  (d) eco-innovation;  (e) entrepreneurship and innovation culture;  (f) enterprise and innovation-related economic and administrative  
  reform. 
 
 Eligibility criteria:   There is no harmonised approach with regard to eligibility criteria in the EIP due to the 
variety of implementation mechanisms used and due to the nature of the EIP being largely a policy support programme. Implementing the EIP is carrie d out in respect of the Financial Regulation 
                                                     
 
26 Decision No 1639/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 
establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Fram ework Programme (2007 to  2013) (OJ L 310/15, 
9.11.2006).  For more information see the CIP portal under http://ec.europa.eu/cip/index_en.htm. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 132  
 
 applicable to the general budget of the European  Communities. The funding granted shall fully 
comply with Community State aid rules and accompany ing instruments (Article 6.2 of CIP Decision). 
  Below is an overview of the main actions under the EIP:   
 The  financial instruments  have as an overall objective the improvement of access to 
finance for the start-up and growth of SMEs and in vestment in innovation activities, including eco-
innovation, by: 
• increasing investment volumes of risk capita l funds and other investment vehicles; 
• providing leverage to SME debt financing instruments and thus increasing the supply 
of debt finance to SMEs. 
 
 The CIP legal base provides the basis for the financial instruments for SMEs, operated by the 
European Investment Fund (EIF) together with int ernational financial institu tions on behalf of the 
Commission: 
 
• The High Growth and Innovative SME Facility (GIF)
 aims to increase the supply of 
equity for innovative SMEs in their ea rly stages (GIF1) and in the expansion phase 
(GIF2).This facility has been operational since November 2007 and is implemented by 
the European Investment Fund (EIF) on behalf of the Commission.  
• The SME Guarantee Facility (SMEG)  provides counter- or co-guarantees to 
guarantee schemes operating in eligible countries, and direct guarantees to financial intermediaries, in order to increase the s upply of debt finance to SMEs. SMEG has 
been operational since September 2007 and is implemented by the EIF on behalf of the 
Commission.  
 
 The Enterprise Europe Network  offers information support services and advice to 
businesses across Europe and helps them make the most  of the opportunities in the European Union. 
The services are specifically desi gned for small and medium enterprises (SMEs). The Enterprise 
Europe Network is made up of close to 600 partner organisations in more than 40 countries, 
promoting competitiveness and innovation at the lo cal level in Europe and beyond. The Network 
started its activities in January 2008 and the netw ork partners were selected following calls for 
proposal.    The innovation projects and eco-innovation  pilot and market replication projects cover 
several fields such as support for innovation, e-sk ills, e-business, clusters or studies. Regarding Eco-
innovation, calls for proposals for pilot and ma rket replication projects are launched every year 
focusing on: 
 (a) cleaner production processes;  (b) innovative environmentally-friendly products and service;  (c) support to enterprises (especially SM Es) in greening their business, products 
  and management methods. 
 
 Other policy support measures  cover policy analyses, studies and conferences. Such 
measures are often implemented by external or ganisations selected after calls for tender. 
 
ii) The European Commission does not use the funding measures of the three programmes under 
the CIP - the Entrepreneurship and Innova tion Programme (EIP), the ICT Policy Support 
Programme (ICT PSP), and the Intelligent Energy- Europe Programme (IEE) to support specific 
industries in the private sector, for policy purposes.  The funding is open to business from any sector 
as long as the applicants fulfil the cr iteria specified for each measure.  
Further information: http:// ec.europa.eu/cip/index_en.htm.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 133 
 
 
 (iv) Intellectual property rights (IPR) 
(page 92, paragraph 194)  Question 4 
We would like to know more about EC measures that  provide protection for the wine and spirits GIs 
of non-EU countries.   
i) Is protection for such a GI only granted by appli cation? If yes, could the EC please provide details 
of the application procedure and the regulati on governing the collection of related fees? 
 According to Article 23.3 of the TRIPS Agreem ent, in the case of homonymous geographical 
indications for wines, protection shall be accorded to each indication, subject to the provisions of 
Paragraph 4 of Article 22.   ii) Does the EC protect each homonymous geographical indication for wines? Could the EC please 
explain the method of protection used in practice?  
 
Answer
 
As from 1.8.2009, wine geographical indicatio ns from a third country may be protected as 
designations of origin (PDO) or geographical indi cations (PGI) in the EC. Council Regulation (EC) 
No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine provides for the 
application for protection as PDO or PGI. It regulates the registration procedure (Title III, 
Chapter IV), which foresees a registration applic ation, an examination of validity, an objection 
procedure and the registration. No  fees are requested regarding applications from third countries. 
Regulation (EC) No. 110/2008 on spirit drinks also provides for a registration application, an examination of validity, an objection procedure and the registration.  
Specific provisions on hom onymous names are provided for in Ar ticle 42 of Regulation No 479/2008. 
 IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR (3) ENERGY  
(page 120, footnote 100)  
Question 5 
It is noted from the report that the European thir d energy package recognizes that effective separation 
of supply and production activities is required, but it did not go as far as requiring ownership 
unbundling.  
Are there any other measures applied to encour age ownership unbundling in order to increase 
competitiveness in the energy market among Member States?  
Answer
 
The European third energy package will not requi re ownership unbundling. However, it can be 
derogated from ownership unbundling only for undertak ings that are vertically integrated on entry 
into force of the Package. Moreover, Member States can not preclude a company from choosing ownership unbundling. Finally, the alternative solu tions to ownership unbundling are very heavy in 
terms of regulatory oversight and burden, and control of investments.   
(page 120, paragraph 77 & footnote 101)  
Question 6 
One of the five main areas proposed by the third European energy package is "strengthening national 
regulators through the setting up of a European agency for the cooperation of energy regulators." The agency "would complement, at the European leve l, the regulatory tasks performed at the national 
level. It implies a transition from the current struct ure for international cooperation of regulators in the 
so-called European Regulators Group for Electricity and Gas (ERGEG)."  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 134  
 
 i) Could the EC please describe the attitude of each Me mber State to the setting up of the European 
Agency for the cooperation of energy regulators?  
ii) It would be appreciated if the EC could explain how the two energy regulators, the European 
agency and ERGEG, actually operate cooperatively in practice? 
 
Answer
 
i) No specific analysis has been undertaken as to the detailed position of each Member State 
onthe European Agency for the cooperation of energy regulators. Anyway, on 9 January 2009 Member States agreed unanimously to the establishm ent of the Agency, its competences and its 
organisation. The discussions prior to the adoption of this Common Position focussed primarily on 
the competences of the Agency, in particular on its competences to take binding decisions. 
 ii) The European Agency for the cooperation of energy regulators will replace ERGEG . Thus, 
legally there won't be any cooperation between  these entities. ERGEG is, however, practically 
involved in the preparation of the set-up of the Agency. 
 
(5) SERVICES (iv) Transport (page 149, paragraph 156) 
 
Question 7 
The report states that "The EC-flagged fleet has increased significantly since 1997 with the adoption 
of guidelines for state aid, allowing staff working on EC-registered ships to benefit from reduced tax 
and social security contributions. Nonetheless, the foreign-flag share was 67.7% in 2006. In 2004, the 
Commission adopted improved guidelines to speed up the re-flagging process by encouraging ship 
owners to maintain the tonnage they register under an EC flag, or risk losing out state aid they may 
receive for additional ships sailing under third-country flags."  
Could the EC please provide us with details of the or iginal guidelines for state aid and the subsequent 
improved guidelines adopted to speed up the re -flagging process, as well as the outcomes resulting 
from the implementation of such preferential measures, for our reference?  
Answer
 
The very first document on State aid to maritim e transport dates back to 1989, but its approach 
consisting in providing financial assistance to shipping companies was in practice never applied and 
the document became obsolete very quickly.  The first real guidelines on State aid to maritime transport were adopted in  1997. They were followed 
by an improved version (which is however formally a new set of guidelines) adopted in early 2004. 
The latter will be revised in 2011/2012.   The guidelines aim at providing shipowners with an attractive tax environment in exchange of the full 
respect of international and European    
For the moment we do not have a study or assessm ent of the effects of the 2004 guidelines. Such a 
study will be probably carried out in 2010. An assessm ent of the 1997 guidelines is contained in the 
introductory part of the 2004 guidelines.  We would point it out that re-flagging is not the only objective of the guidelines. Promotion of the 
maritime cluster in Europe, of the seafaring pr ofession, enhancement of maritime know-how and 
encouragement of modal shift are also among the objectiv es of State aid to maritime transport.       
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 135 
 
 
 CHINESE TAIPEI III  
 
EC Report WT/TPR/G/214 
 III. KEY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE EC ’S TRADE POLICY (2007-08) 
(6) TRADE AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 
(ii) Trade and development (page 22, paragraph 79) 
 
Question 1 
The EC adopted a joint Aid for Trade Strategy on 15  October 2007, and is on track to meeting its 
Hong Kong pledge to provide €2 billion by 2010.  
i) If possible, could the EC please provide details of its proposed projects and their objectives, 
including the timetable and the agency in charge of each project?   
ii) Furthermore, given our experience in providing technical assistance to developing countries, we 
would welcome more opportunities to work in cooperation with the EC in Aid for Trade.  
 
Answer
 
i) The EU AfT Strategy is articulated around the following key activities: (i) scaling-up total 
AfT; (ii) enhancing the impact and pro-poor focu s of EU AfT; iii) increasing EU-wide and Member 
States’ donors capacity in line with globally agreed aid effectiveness principles; (iv) supporting the 
ACP regional integration process; and (v) ensuring an effective monitoring a nd reporting to sustain 
the process of implementing commitments.  The EU AfT strategy is implemented in partn er countries and regions under the partners' leadership 
and with the support of EU country and regional offi ces. This is where the key activities take place, 
such as policy dialogue, programming, stakeholder coordination, programme implementation, etc.  
Usually the partner government award, under the su pervision of the European Commission, contracts 
with third parties to carry out certain actions re quired. Projects may also be undertaken directly by 
the partner country itself.  EC funded projects cover a broad range of activities,  according to priorities identified by partner 
countries. They include, for instance, export and invest ment promotion, technical assistance in trade 
negotiations, building infrastructure, support to sm all- and medium sized enterprises, improvement of 
sanitary and phyto-sanitary standar ds, support to regulatory and in stitutional reforms, upgrade of 
professional expertise, expansion of ICT skills, co mpetitiveness enhancement, and harmonization of 
the legislation. 
 
For more detailed information, please consult:  
 The annual Aid for Trade monitoring Report, prepared by the European Commission. 
Last year Report is available at: http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/ docs/2008/november/tradoc_141471.pdf 
The Report for 2009 will be published in April.  
 
 The OECD/DAC Creditor Reporting System (CRS) database: 
http://www.oecd.org/doc ument/0/0,2340,en_2649_34447 _37679488_1_1_1_1,00.html 
 
 The European Commission Delegations can provide further details on projects in 
specific countries and regions. 
 
ii) Enhancing donor coordination is an important  priority for the EC, in line with the aid 
effectiveness agenda. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 136  
 
 CHILE I
 
 
II. Régimen de Comercio e Inversión 
4) Trade Regulations and Business Environment 
 
Pregunta 1 
El párrafo 19 del Informe de la Secretaría se refiere a la política de la CE respecto a las Pequeñas y 
Medianas Empresas (PYMES).  ¿Podría la CE indicar  cómo se define una PYME i.e. número de 
empleados, tipo de organización, vol umen de ventas? ¿Asimismo, podría indicar en qué sectores se 
concentran las PYMEs y si las políticas y medidas señaladas en el menci onado párrafo 19 y en las 
regulaciones comunitarias, se aplican por igual a to das las PYMEs o existen diferencias por sectores 
productivos?  
Respuesta
 
The EU SME definition encompasses enterprises with fewer than 250 employees and which are 
independent from larger companies. Furthermo re, their annual turnover may not exceed 50 Million 
Euro or their annual balance sheet exceed 43 Millio n Euro. More than 80% of employment in some 
industrial sectors such as the manufacture of me tal products, construction and furniture comes from 
SMEs. The SME definition is the same for all sectors.  
 
Pregunta 2 
Asimismo en los párrafos 137, 138 y 139 (Sección III. 4.i.d) se identifican diversos programas de 
apoyo a las PYMEs.  ¿Quisiéramos conocer qué medidas adicionales de apoyo a estas pequeñas y 
medidas empresas se han adoptado producto de la crisis económico financiera? 
 
Respuesta  
The European Economic Recovery Plan includes se veral measures intended to support in particular 
SMEs, such as new financing thro ugh the European Investment Bank  for SMEs amounting to 30 bn 
Euros; a target for Member States to ensure st arting up a business does not take more than three 
days; a proposal to remove the requirement for mi cro-enterprises to prepare annual accounts; and a 
proposal for an amendment of the late payment di rective to ensure public authorities pay invoices for 
supplies and services, including to SMEs, within one month.  
 
For further information: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sme/index_en.htm
 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/newsroom/cf/ite mlongdetail.cfm?item_id =2919&tpa_id=174&lang=en  
 
5) Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
 
Pregunta 3 
En el párrafo 25 se señala que la CE considera los Acuerdos Comerciales Preferenciales como parte 
de un política más amplia de promoción del mu ltilateralismo, agregándose que por ello, un número 
importante de esas negociaciones son con o estimulan la  creación de grupos regionales.   ¿Podría la 
CE explicar por qué, a su juicio, un ACR con un  grupo regional lo hace más consistente con la 
promoción del multilateralismo?  ¿Es ello una cu estión de cobertura o profundidad del ACR?  
¿Significaría entoces que, en principio, los acuerdos entre miembros individuales no serían consistentes con esa política? 
 
¿En esa misma política, qué rol juegan las cláusul as de tipo NMF que la UE ha incorporado en 
acuerdos recientes, como los EPAs?  
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 137 
 
 
 Respuesta  
Being a successful example of regional integrati on itself, the EC believes that RTAs can act as 
building blocks for the multilateral system where th ey encourage regional inte gration and the growth 
of regional markets. The EC has favoured the nego tiation of RTAs on a ‘regi on-to-region’ basis in 
order to provide further impetus to the regional integration process of the trading partners. The EC 
considers this approach is crucial to foster st ability, progress and sustainable development in each 
region. For those regions with a reduced size in  world trade, consolidating regional markets will 
certainly help to place that region in the world economy by developing larger and more stable economies that will be able to attract more investment. Therefore, a region-to-region RTA approach aims to support further integration of the parties to  a regional grouping into the international trading 
system. Furthermore, economic agents in the re gion would certainly benefit from the enhanced 
opportunities created by larger and more integrated regional markets and eventually benefit further 
from preferential treatment granted  under the region-to-region RTA. 
 In order for an RTA to be complementary to th e multilateral trading system, it needs to be WTO 
compatible, comprehensive in scope  and deep in libera lization commitments. This condition needs to 
be met by both RTAs with individual co untries and by region-to-region RTAs.  
 As regards the inclusion of MFN clauses, the reason for including such MFN clauses in RTAs is to avoid discrimination. In the case of EPAs, for examp le, the EC has opened its market to full duty and 
quota free imports from ACP countri es. Through the MFN clauses in EPAs, the EC aims to ensure 
that other major trading economies, i.e. its direct competitors, will not receive better treatment if they 
enter into preferential trade agreements with ACP countries in the future. 
 
III. Políticas y prácticas comerciales, por medidas 
2) Medidas que afectan directamente a las importaciones 
iii) Otras cargas  
Pregunta 4 
Según el informe de la Secretaría, tanto el IVA co mo los impuestos específico s tienen un cierto grado 
de armonización, incluyendo en el caso de estos últim os, tasas mínimas.  ¿Se seguirá trabajando en la 
armonización de todos esos impuestos, con el objeto de lograr una tasa única tanto para el IVA como 
los impuestos específicos?  
 
Respuesta
 
The move towards a higher level of harmonization of  VAT rates is not on the political EU agenda at 
the current point in time. In the area of excise duties, the Commission has published a proposal for 
revision of the Directives covering tobacco taxatio n in 2008, which is currently under discussion in 
the Council of the European Union. For energy taxation, the Commission  announced a revision of Directive 2003/96/EC in its Legislative and work pr ogramme of 2008, but it has not adopted a 
proposal so far.  In none of these areas it is envisaged to set a single tax rate.  
 
vii) Medidas Especiales  Pregunta 5 
De acuerdo al párrafo 53, las medidas antidumping só lo pueden aplicarse si ellas no son contrarias al 
interés amplio de la economía de la CE.  ¿Cóm o se determina ese interés amplio?  ¿Cómo pesa la 
Comisión los distintos intereses en juego?  ¿Existen directivas sobre el particular o criterios que deben 
ser aplicados por la Comisión, especialmente para asegurar que todos los intereses han sido tomados 
en consideración al momento de adoptarse una medida?  ¿En qué casos la Comisión podría aplicar una medida antidumping sin haber reali zado este "test de interés público"?   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 138  
 
 ¿Lo anterior es aplicable sólo para las medidas definitivas o la autoridad también debe tomar en 
cuenta el interés global de la CE al mo mento de adoptar medidas provisionales?  
 
Respuesta
 
The Community interest test is a material prec ondition to be applied inter alia in anti-dumping 
proceedings for the imposition of provisional and definitive measures. The Community interest test 
requires to establish whether there are compelling reasons according to which measures would be 
contrary to the overall interest of  the Community. In this respect , the interests of all relevant 
economic operators which might be affected by the outcome of the investigation must be taken into 
account. These interests typically include those of the Community industry, importers, users, 
consumers and traders of the product concerned , and the analysis asse sses the positive impact 
measures will have on some operators as opposed to the negative impact on others. The Community 
interest  test does not involve wider aspects such as foreign development policy considerations. 
 3) Medidas que afectan a la producción y al comercio.  
 Ayudas y otros incentivos 
(b) Apoyo a la agricultura y pesquerías 
 
Pregunta 6 
¿De qué manera se asegura la CE que los programas  mencionados en el párrafo 113 no contribuyan a 
la sobre capacidad ni la sobre e xplotación de los recursos pequeros? 
 
Respuesta
 
Most of the aid provided through the Eur opean Fisheries Fund (the successor of the Financial 
Instrument for Fisheries Guidance) is intended for measures such as: the reduction of fishing 
capacity, the implementation of recovery plans for sel ected fish species or stocks, the encouragement 
of selective fishing methods and the funding for loca l development strategies to foster the sustainable 
development of fisheries areas, support for inland fishing and environmentally-friendly aquaculture.  
In this context of adjustment of fishing capacity, it should be stressed that, as agreed by EU Ministers 
under the reform of 2002 of the Common Fisheries Po licy, aid for the constructions of new vessels, 
which contributed to creating overcapacity , came to an end in December 2004.  
A very small portion of aid is provided for the repl acement of engines, in particular for small vessels 
(under 12 meters). This has been designed in such 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.  Consequently, and in line with the reform of the CF P, aid from the EFF will not be used for measures 
that increase the fishing capacity of the European fl eet. On the contrary, th e available money under 
the new fund will be spent in bringing capac ity in line with available fish resources. 
An additional mechanism designed to prevent an in creasing in fishing capacity is the so-called 
"entry-exit" system whereby any introduction of new capacity has to be compensated by the 
withdrawal of at least an equivale nt capacity without financial aid. 
Finally, the EC has in place a fisheries management regime comprising a variety of tools and instruments (Total Allowable Catches, fishing effo rt limitations, fishing gear regulations, closed 
areas, etc) used to limit the amount of fish that is harvested. 
 Pregunta 7 
¿Podría asimismo la CE entregar mayores detalles de las acciones y medidas específicas temporales 
adoptadas en julio del 2008 para pr omover la reestructuración de las flotas pesqueras comunitarias, 
que se menciona en el párrafo 159? 
 
Respuesta
 
The package of measures adopted in July 2008 included the main following elements:  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 139 
 
 
 emergency measures, consisting principally of tempor ary cessation aid, to help fishermen cope with 
short-term pressures while the sector prepares a longer-term strategy;  restructuring measures (Fleet Adaptation Schemes,  FAS): special support measures will be made 
available to fleets for which EU Member Stat es adopt FAS, which meet the following requirements: 
 
– fuel represents at least 30% of the fleet's production costs; and  
– the FAS will bring about a permanent reduction of at least 30% in the fleet's 
capacity.  For EU Member States whose fleet is less than 100 vessels, this 
threshold can be lowered to 20%.  
 
For further details please refer to Council Regulation (EC) 744/2008 of 24 July, published in the EU's 
Official Journal OJ L 202 p. 1–8, of 31 July 2008. 
Further information can be obtained at the Eu ropean Commission's website (Directorate General 
Fisheries and Maritime Affairs): http:// ec.europa.eu/fisheries/index_en.htm   
 
CHILE II
 
 
III. Políticas y prácticas comerciales, por medidas 
2) Medidas que afectan directamente a las importaciones vii) Medidas Especiales 
 
Pregunta 8  
Regarding paragraph 48, if in the EC legislati on is possible the simultaneous application of anti-
dumping and countervailing measures for the same pr oduct, does it not imply a duplication of the 
remedy since it is quite possible that a dumping action is financed by a government subsidy? 
 
Respuesta
 
The provisions in EC legislation reflect WTO law.  Indeed, Article VI:5 of GATT 1947 stipulates that 
'No product of the territory of any contracting par ty imported into the territory of another contracting 
party shall be subject to both anti-dumping duti es and countervailing duties to compensate for the 
same situation of dumping or export subsidization.'  
 
It follows from this that a cumulative applic ation of an export subsidy and the corresponding 
anti-dumping duty is normally not possible insofar as  the dumping is the result of an export subsidy. 
In all other cases, cumulation of anti-dumping and countervailing duties is not ruled out because the 
issue of 'double counting' does conceptually not arise.  
 
Pregunta 9 
What specific new trade defence measures are be ing discussed among the EC Member States, the 
European Parliament, and Business stakeholders? Para.50. In addition, Chile would like to know the link, if any, between that discussion and the Rules 
negotiations under the DDA. 
 
Respuesta
 
At the end of 2006 the European Commission launched a wide ranging discussion ("Green Paper") on its existing trade defence instruments. In January 2008 the Trade Commissioner concluded that  more reflection time is needed to continue 
the Green Paper process. There is no specific timel ine for finishing these public consultations. Any 
developments in the Rules negotiations will of course be taken into account. 
 Pregunta 10 
Is there any reason why Anti Dumping measures are the EC´s most frequently used trade defence 
mechanism? WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 140  
 
 Respueta
 
In general, investigations are initiated upon complaint by a natural or legal person or any association 
acting on behalf of the Community industry and th e number of anti-dumping complaints exceeds the 
number of anti-subsidy complaints.  
Pregunta 11 On initiation standards both for AD and Safeguards i nvestigations (paragraphs 53 and 60), we would 
like to know if there are differences in the standard  depending if the investigation is requested by the 
industry or upon initiative of the Commission. 
 
Respuesta
 
As regards AD, the same standard as set out in Article 5(2), (3) Council Regulation (EC) No. 384/96 
of 22 December 1995 applies.  As regards Safeguard, the industry has no standing to request an initiation. Therefore, initiation is 
formally either requested by a Member State or initiated by the Commission on its own initiative. The 
latter normally does not take place but the st andards are identical for practical purposes. 
 Pregunta 12 
Complementing a previous questions on the "public in terest" issue (paragraph 53), Chile would like to 
know how many measures were not imposed after the EC weighted all the interests and concluded 
that the measure were against the wider interest of the EC economy? 
 
Respuesta
 
Out of 100 cases initiated during the period 1996-2008, 11 were terminated under the Community Interest test. 
 
Pregunta 13 
Regarding paragraph 54: What are the processes an d instances through which an importer can show 
(demonstrate) that the dumping margin for a product has been eliminated or reduced?  
 
Respuesta
 
Any importer is free to request a refund when it c an be demonstrated that the dumping margin for its 
supplier is lower than the duty in force.  Pregunta 14 
Does the EC consider that the requirement of an  import authorization for products subject to a 
Safeguard measure constitute a dupli cation of the original measure? 
 
Respuesta
 
The EC does not necessarily require an import aut horization for products subject to safeguard 
measures. However, a license may be necessary if the safeguard measu re takes the form of a quota or 
a tariff rate quota and when it is considered inappr opriate to administer the measure on a first-come-
first-served basis. 
 IV Políticas comerciales por sector 2) Agricultura y actividades relacionadas ii) Política Agrícola Común 
 
Teniendo en consideración la entrada en vigencia de las reformas  a la PAC, aprobadas recientemente 
por el Consejo de Ministros de la UE Chile, quisiera hacer algunas preguntas y solicitar precisiones.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 141 
 
 
 Pregunta 15 
Reconocida la importancia del sector lácteo en la Unión Europea y el historial de medidas de política 
que ha tomado desde su creación, considerando además  que el mismo es influyente a nivel mundial, 
tanto para exportaciones como importaciones, se ha ce necesario pedir precisión acerca de las últimas 
medidas tomadas. 
 
¿La restitución de los subsidios a la exportación para este producto, comprometida por la Comisaria 
de Agricultura de la Unión Europea, no es incompat ible con los compromisos adoptados en la Ronda 
Doha y que hasta 2008 su compromiso y  tendencia era hacia su eliminación?  
¿Lo anterior implica que debemos esperar que la Unión Europea haga uso de sus recursos, 
subsidiando al sector lácteo, dependiendo de las fluctuaciones de precios en el mercado mundial? 
 ¿Es razonable pensar que el uso de estos recurs os distorsionantes provoca problemas en terceros 
países – tanto por la vía de generar crisis en este sector productivo así como enfrentamientos con sus  
gobiernos -  los cuales no tienen la capacidad de otorgar subsidios? 
 
Respuesta
 
The EC stands by its commitments to phase-out export subsidies by 2013 on condition of a successful 
completion of the DDA in which our trading partn ers will also have to discipline their export support 
programmes. The EC introduced export subsidies for certain dairy products in the beginning of 2009 
as a temporary safety net measure in an exceptional  situation. In using export subsidies we respect 
our scheduled commitments under the WTO and theref ore, these measures are not WTO inconsistent 
measures.  Pregunta 16  
Como resultado de la reforma de la PAC del 200 3, que se centró en moverse hacia un esquema de 
pago único, se ha visto que la participación de esta ayuda  bajo este esquema  se ha ido incrementando 
desde 1% en 2004 a 33% en 2007 (de Euros 1,4 billones a Euros 32,4 billones). Según la OECD, la Unión Europea tiene un nivel de ayuda más alta que el promedio de los países de la OECD. 
 ¿Cómo afectan estas medid as al comercio mundial, especialmente a los países en desarrollo, incluso 
considerando que las medidas son clasificadas por la Unión Europea en compartimiento verde? 
 ¿No van estas medidas en dirección contrari a a los objetivos de la Ronda de Doha? 
 
Respuesta
 
The Single Payment Scheme, introduced as a resu lt of the CAP reforms of 2003, created decoupled 
payments in conformity with par 6 of Annex 2 of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. 
Therefore the measure has no, or at most minimal trade  distorting effects, in conformity with par 1 of 
Annex 2 of this Agreement.  On the other hand the EC's coupled support has u ndergone substantial reductions. The size of these 
reductions is such that the Communities could ma ke a major contribution to the objectives of the 
Doha Round in offering cuts in its OTDS and AMS ceilings outsizing the domestic support cuts 
offered by any other WTO Member. 
 
5) Servicios 
 Servicios Profesionales 
 
Pregunta 17 
¿Cómo ha ido avanzando el proceso de armoniz ación o reconocimiento de títulos o habilitación 
profesional? ¿Qué resultados esperan obtener? ¿Qué  sistema piensan implementar a este respecto? 
Finalmente, ¿como afectaría o ayudaría esto a terceros países? WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 142  
 
 Respuesta
 
The EU achieved harmonisation of training requirem ents for seven professions (doctors, dentists, 
nurses, midwives, pharmacists, veterinary surge ons and architects). Although the harmonisation 
concerns only the minimum training requirements (which means that in some Member States 
additional training is required), the diplomas a re recognized automatically throughout the EU and 
EEA. For various activities of craft, commerce and industry sectors a system based on the automatic 
recognition of consecutive periods of experience and skills has been put in place. For all other 
regulated professions EU law provides for general ru les. Under these rules, called 'general system', 
access to a profession shall be granted to a prof essional who is fully qualified for the profession in 
question in another Member State. However, if the duration or the content of training of a migrant 
differs substantially from those required in the host Member State, compensatory measures can be 
imposed on the migrant, i.e. either an adaptation peri od or an aptitude test. The current legal basis is 
essentially the recently adopted Directive 2005/36/ EC on the recognition of professional 
qualifications. For the time being,  no new systems are planned.  
 
As a matter of principle, the said rules only apply to EU citizens. There are, however, other directives 
extending these rights (fully or partly) to third coun try nationals, namely to family members of EU 
citizens and to long-term residents. Furthermore, there are some rules fa cilitating the recognition of 
third country qualifications detained by EU citizens.  
 
CHILE III  
 
III. Políticas y prácticas comerciales, por medidas 
4) Medidas que afectan la producción y el comercio iv) Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual a) Propiedad Industrial 
 
Pregunta 18 
En el párrafo 166 se menciona que todo signo representado gráficamente, tales como palabras, 
nombres, diseños, letras, números, figuras o sus embalajes pueden ser protegidos como marca 
comunitaria ¿podrían entonces también registrars e como marcas los nombres que correspondan a 
indicaciones geográficas? 
 
Respuesta
 
The Community Trade Mark Regulation provides for th e possibility to register signs or indications 
which consist of the name of the geographical or igin of the goods or services as a Community 
collective mark. This special type of trade mark may be applied for by associations of manufacturers, 
producers, suppliers of services, or traders having le gal capacity as well as by legal persons 
governed by public law. The function of a collective trade mark is to show who is entitled to use the 
mark. It can only be used by members of the relev ant association. The exclusive rights conferred by a 
collective mark consisting of a geographic indica tion may only not be invoked against a third party 
who is entitled to use a geographical name.   
Pregunta 19 Con ocasión del acceso de Bulgaria y Rumania a la UE, el párrafo 177 señala que las marcas y 
diseños comunitarios solicitados o vigentes a la é poca en que éstos países ingresaron a la UE fueron 
extendidas automáticamente a dichos territorios de forma automática. ¿Podría la UE explicar en qué 
situación quedan las marcas y diseños previamente re gistrados en los territorios de Bulgaria o 
Rumania que, estando vigentes, se ven, como consec uencia de su accesión a la UE, afectados en sus 
derechos exclusivos?  
Respuesta
 
Both the trade mark and the design system in the EU is governed by the principle of coexistence,  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 143 
 
 
 which means that neither the Community trade ma rk nor the Community design system replaces the 
respective national systems but exists in parallel to  them. Based on this principle the pertinent 
provisions on enlargement provide that on a cert ain number of grounds there is (only) a right to 
restrict the use of the Community trade mark/design in the territory of the new Member States. 
Holders of earlier trade mark and design rights in ne w Member States can in fact enforce their rights 
against extended Community trade mark and design as  provided by their national legislation, 
provided that the earlier right was registered, applied for or acquired in good faith in the new 
Member State prior to the date of accession of that State.   Pregunta 20 
En el párrafo 181 y la nota de píe de página 221s e menciona la consulta realizada el 2006 a los 
sectores interesados de la CE e indica que su resu ltado arrojó serias diferencias en los exámenes 
relativos al nivel inventivo de las patentes entre los países que conforman la UE, que resultarían en 
divergencias en la calidad de las patentes. ¿Qué  medidas está tomando la CE o planea tomar para 
evitar las denominadas maraña de patentes ("patent th ickets") y las patentes parásitos ("patent trolls") 
que resultarían de la diferente evaluación que las oficinas nacionales realizan del nivel inventivo? 
 
Respuesta 
 
The Commission Communication "An Industrial Pr operty Rights Strategy for Europe" COM(2008) 
465 final of 16 July 2008 included a chapter on the quality of industrial property rights, including 
patents. This acknowledged the need that paten ts should be granted only where a true inventive 
contribution is made. It also outlined a number of  initiatives that could improve patent quality, such 
as ensuring that patent examiners are kept abreast w ith the latest developments in their field, properly 
accounting for refusal of patent applications at pat ent offices, and the contribution stakeholders can 
make to improving quality. The Commission will also  launch a comprehensive study on patent quality 
to analyse the risks of low quality rights and explo re ways to avoid their presence in Europe 
 
Pregunta 21 
En relación al párrafo 186.   
 (1) ¿Bajo qué condiciones se puede extender por cinco años más el término de protección de 
nuevas variedades vegetales?   Respuesta
 
According to Article 19.2 of Regulation (EC) No  2100\94 on Community plant variety rights (basic 
Regulation), the Council, acting by qual ified majority, may, in respect of  specific genera or species of 
plants, provide for an extension of their prot ection up to a further five years. Additionally, 
Article 36.2, second indent of the basic, provides that the Administrative Council of the Community 
Plant Variety Office (CPVO) may forward to the Comm ission of the EC draft amendments to the basic 
Regulation, or to other rules relating to plant variety rights.  The basic Regulation does not define any specific conditions under which the Council would provide 
for such an extension. However, some of the reasons to submit such a proposal may be the following:   
 
o the technical difficulties in  breeding the said genera  or species would require 
expenditure of research activities for a longer period  in comparison with the overwhelming majority of all other crops; 
o it takes more time to reveal the commercial value of the said genera or species 
compared to other crops; 
o an equitable refunding of R&D would only be possible at a fairly late stage of the 
protection in comparison with other crops. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 144  
 
 (2) También se señala que es posible que sobre nuevas variedades vegetales protegidas, se 
concedan licencias obligatorias.  ¿Podría expli car qué casos podrían considerarse como situaciones 
fundadas en el interés público? ¿Están éstos definidos en alguna regulación comunitaria?  
 
Respuesta
 
Public interest is not defined in the Regulatio n on Community Plant Variety Right. However this 
concept has been defined by EC Law an d case-law and there are several references:  
 
- Article 30 of the Treaty establishing the European Community provides that : "The 
provisions of Article s 28 and 29 shall not preclude prohib itions or restrictions on imports, 
exports or goods in transit jus tified on grounds of public mora lity, public policy or public 
security; the protection of health  and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of 
national treasures possessing artistic, historic or  archaeological value; or the protection of 
industrial and commercial property. Such pr ohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, 
constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between 
Member States". 
 - In the "Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions" it is stated that substantive 
patent law cannot serve to replace or render sup erfluous national, European or international 
law which may impose restrictions or prohib itions or which concerns the monitoring of 
research and of the use or commercialisation of its results, notably from the point of view of 
the requirements of public health, safety, en vironmental protection, animal welfare, the 
preservation of genetic diversity and compliance with certain ethical standards; 
 Additionally,  the said Directive contai ns an illustrative list of inventions 
excluded from patentability so as to  provide national courts and patent 
offices with a general guide to interp reting the reference to order public and 
morality; However,  it is highlighted in the Directive that this list obviously cannot be exhaustive;  
 
 Finally article 6 of the : Inventions shall be considered unpatentable where 
their commercial exploitation would be c ontrary to order public or morality;  
 
- As regards the possibility of invoking reas ons of public interest to grant compulsory 
licenses, Regulation (EC) No 2100/94 (basic regulation) provides that the exercise of Community plant variety rights must be subjected to restrictions laid down in provisions adopted in the public interest. The said regulatio n further mentions that the notion public 
interest in order to grant compulsory licenses,  may include the need to supply the market 
with material offering specified features, or to  maintain the incentive for continued breeding 
of improved varieties.  
 
- The notion of public interest is further re fined in Article 13§8 of the basic regulation 
where it is stated that the exercise of the right s conferred by Community plant variety rights 
may not violate any provisions adopted on the gr ounds of public morality, public policy or 
public security, the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants, the protection 
of the environment, the protection of industria l or commercial property, or the safeguarding 
of competition, of trade or of agricultural production. 
 
In light of the above-mentioned, the interpretati on of the notion of public interest may vary depending 
on the content and the case. Therefore, an exception may be introduced invoking reasons of public interest provided that the exception is justifiabl e, proportionate and non-discriminatory.   
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 145 
 
 
 (3) Además, se indica que las licencias obligator ias respecto de nuevas variedades registradas a 
nivel comunitario sólo pueden ser concedidas por el Consejo comunitario administrativo, 
excluyéndose a las autoridades nacionales. ¿En esos casos, entonces, las licencias obligatorias 
tendrían efecto en todo el territorio de la UE?  Respuesta
 
Only the CPVO can give compulsory licenses, but they do not automatically cover the whole territory 
of the EU, they can take effects into one single state or several of them.  a) Derechos de autor y derechos conexos 
 
Pregunta 22 
¿En qué casos y bajo qué circunstancias operarían la s excepciones a los derechos de autor y conexos 
basadas en la seguridad pública (párrafo  190)? ¿Podría mencionar algunos ejemplos? 
 
Respuesta
 
The allowable exceptions and limitations are listed in  article 5 of Directive EC 2001/29 "Copyright in 
the information society".  In the report it says "pub lic security" rather than "public safety" and this is 
covered by exception 5(3)(e) which states "use for th e purposes of public security or to ensure the 
proper performance or reporting of administrati ve, parliamentary or judicial proceedings". 
 
a) Indicaciones geográficas 
 Pregunta 23 
De acuerdo al párrafo 194 del Informe de la S ecretaría, las Indicaciones Geográficas comunitarias 
para productos agrícolas y alimenticios se encuentran  reguladas en el Reglamento Nº510/2006. Por su 
parte, el Reglamento 628/2008 regula detalladamente ciertos símbolos que pueden incorporarse en las 
etiquetas de productos protegidos por IGs. Estos sí mbolos, que consisten en sellos característicos que 
incorporan las palabras "indicación geográfica proteg ida" y "denominación de origen protegida", de 
acuerdo a lo expresamente señalado en el Reglamento  628/2008 (Párrafo 2) contribuyen a valorizar  
las IGs y DOs, facilitando su distinción entre los consumidores.  
Cumpliendo entonces dichos símbolos el objetivo de proporcionar valor agregado a los productos 
cuyos nombres están protegidos por IGs ¿pueden las IGs extranjeras que se registren en el registro 
comunitario utilizar dichos símbolos? Asimismo , ¿pueden las IGs extranjeras que la UE ha 
reconocido en acuerdos bilaterales hacer us o de los símbolos que se regulan en el 
Reglamento 628/2008? 
 
Respuesta
 
European symbols, defined following Regulation (EC)  No 628/2008, can be used on the labelling of 
products marketed under a protected designation of origin (PDO) or protected geographical 
indications (PGI) entered in the EU registers on protected designations of origin and protected 
geographical indications. 
 
KOREA I  
 
Question 1: Government Report, page 10, paragraph 26 
 The Government report states that to overcome the current economic difficulties, it is important to 
facilitate trade while resisting the temptation to resort to protectionism.  
1) What are the EC’s concrete plans to facilitate trade and avoid protectionism? WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 146  
 
 2) Could the EC provide a list of trade-related measu res that it and/or its Member States have taken 
since September, 2008? 
3) With respect to the trade-related measures take n (and responded in Q1-2 above), which are those 
that could be construed to be trade dist orting and/or protectionist in nature?  
4) (Follow-up to Q1-3) Could the EC elaborate on why those measures were taken and provide a 
possible timeframe for its termination? 
 
Answer
 
1) The EC is committed to countering protectionist pressures with all possible means, and sees trade as an important part of the overall solutio n to the economic crisis. First, completing the Doha 
Round will provide an insurance policy against rising  protectionism and further strengthen the world 
trading system, and the EC continues to advocate for a swift conclusion of the negotiations. Secondly, 
the EC attaches great importance to ensuring that crisis measures across the globe are introduced in 
a transparent and least trade-restrictive manner. The EC therefore welcomes the renewed pledge for 
open markets by the G20 Leaders, as well as thei r clear mandate to the WTO to maintain the 
monitoring mechanism (already set up by the WT O Director-General), to which it will continue to 
actively contribute. Third, given the crucial role of trade finance in today's global trade and in line with the London G20's commitment, the EC and th e EU Member States are taking action to address 
the existing shortfall, and to get trade finance flo wing again. Finally, the EC continues to call for 
trading partners to implement their Aid for Trade commitments, which will play a crucial role in 
assisting developing countries to better exploit their potential for trade. 
 
2  Information regarding trade-related measures taken by the EC and the EU Member States 
since September 2008 is available for WT O members in the second TPRB monitoring report 
[JOB(09)/30] issued on 26 March 2009. The EC c ontributed extensively to the second report by 
submitting in writing to the WTO Secretariat substant ial information regarding measures taken by the 
EC and EU Member States in response to the crisis  – an example that the G20 Leaders on 2 April in 
London pledged to follow.   3) The EC is of the view that a detailed assessm ent of trade distortiveness of individual measures 
would require extensive economic analysis, which falls outside the scope of the Trade Policy Review 
exercise. In general however, the EC considers that  border protection measures are in most cases 
clearly more distorting than subsidies which, especia lly when the latter are directed at stimulating 
consumption, often boost production not onl y of domestic industries but also abroad. 
 4) The measures referred to a bove have clearly been taken in  response to the ongoing economic 
crisis and the tremendous difficulties that the Eur opean economy is experiencing. Being motivated by 
the current exceptional circumstances, most of th e EC measures listed in the second TPRB monitoring 
report [JOB(09)/30] are clearly of a temporary nat ure. For instance, the Temporary framework for 
State aid measures is strictly time-bound, and is to  be removed at the end of 2010. Trade defence 
measures, on the other hand, are by definition tem porary, and will be removed once the unfair trade 
practices to which they are responding will be rectified.  
 
Question 2: Secretariat Report, page 10, paragraph 28 With regards to the current financial/economic cris is, it is our understanding that many members of 
the EC have formulated/implemented  individual economic stimulus packages. In this context, it seems 
important and crucial for member states to coordi nate macro-economic policies in order to maximize 
the economic effect of these stimulus packages. 
1) In this regard, could the EC elaborate on what ac tions it has taken to coordinate the individual 
stimulus package of its member states?  
2) Are there plans to improve the coordination efforts? If so, could the EC elaborate? 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 147 
 
 
 Answer  
1) The European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP)27 endorsed by the December European 
Council called for a timely and coordinated stimulus equivalent to 1.5 % of GDP (1.2 % of which 
coming from actions by Member States).   
2) On 4 March the Commission reported on impl ementation of the EERP in a Communication to 
the Spring European Council.
28 The focus should now be on swift implementation of planned fiscal 
stimulus packages to avoid that the recession becomes entrenched. Public finance sustainability 
remains crucial. Once the recovery takes hold, an orderly reversal of the macroeconomic stimuli is 
warranted.  
 
Question 3: Secretariat Report, pages 2, 5 ; paragraphs 5, 12 
According to the WTO Secretariat report, the fiscal deficit as a percentage of GDP decreased from 
1.4% to 0.9% between 2006 and 200 7. The ratio of government debt to GDP also decreased from 
61.3% to 58.7% between 2006 and 2007. 
 
1) Amid the global financial crisis, each country  is adopting counter-cyclical fiscal stimulus 
packages. In this context, what is the EC’s fo recast for fiscal deficit and the government debt for 
the years 2008 and 2009?  
2) Fiscal stimulus packages are likely to increase the EC member state's fiscal deficit and 
government debt. In this context, is there a plan to ensure that the fiscal stimulus package is duly 
implemented while also ensuring that the obligati on to adhere to the SGP (Stability and Growth 
Pact) criteria is respected at the same time? 
 
Answer  
1) According to the Commission's interim forecast published on 19 January, general 
government net borrowing amounted to 2% in 2008 and is  forecast to amount to 4.4% in 2009, in the 
EU while the debt rose and is expected to rise to 60.6% and 67.4% of GDP, respectively,.  These figures are currently being reviewed in the fr amework of the spring forecast exercise due on 
4 May and on the basis of Member States reporting of public finances on 1 April (validated by ESTAT 
at around 21 April).  Reflecting the actions taken in line with the EERP and the operation of automatic stabilisers, which 
are particularly powerful in Europe, the government deficit is projected to reach around 4.8% of the 
EU GDP in 2010, its highest level in the last fift een yeas. This represents an increase of almost 3 pp 
of GDP from 2008 (which had already seen a deficit increase of more than 1 pp), the highest in thirty years.  The raise in government debt will be even more sizeable. After inc reasing by almost 2 pp in 2008, the 
debt-to-GDP ratio in the EU is projected to rise by a further more than 10 pp in 2009-10. Only 
around one twentieth of this increase reflects financi al support operations that do not figure in the 
deficit as they are the counterpart of the acquisitio n of claims toward the financial sector (capital 
injections, asset purchases, direct loans). These figures do not include explicit guarantees extended to the financial sector, which do not require upfront funding, but which nevertheless could result in significant budgetary outlays in case of de fault on the guaranteed liabilities.  
A cross-country comparison of the fiscal policy res ponses to falling aggregate demand, both in terms 
of stimulus packages and aggregate fiscal stance, high lights significant differences in size. At least in 
part, these discrepancies reflect differences in th e countries' perceived ability to expand without 
facing adverse market reactions, as indicated by wi dening spreads on government debt. In turn, these 
are related to starting budgetary and competitive po sitions, their evolution over time, as well as, 
increasingly, the scale of the commitment, explicit or potential,  towards the financial sectors. 
 
                                                     
 
27 http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/president/pdf/Comm_20081126.pdf 
28 http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/president/pdf/press_20090304_annx_en.pdf WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 148  
 
 2) The total support provided by fiscal policies in 2009 and 2010 is estimated to amount to 3.3% 
of EU GDP. The focus should now be on swift impl ementation of planned fiscal stimulus packages to 
avoid that the recession becomes entrenched. Pub lic finance sustainability remains crucial. Once the 
recovery takes hold, an orderl y reversal of the macroeconom ic stimuli is warranted. 
 
Question 4: Secretariat Report, page 13, paragraph 22 According to the WTO Secretariat report, the EC's GDP  growth rate is expected to fall to minus 1.8% 
in 2009.   
1) With reports on possible default by Eastern Europ ean member states, there are growing concerns 
about the financial exposure of many Western European countries to Eastern Europe. Was the 
downside risk of Eastern European default consid ered in the projection of EC-27's growth rate? 
If so, how does the EC assess its impact? 
2) What are the prospects regarding Eastern Europ ean default? Are there any measures or policy 
directions to cope with such a default? 
 
Answer
 
1) No, we do not consider defaults in our central scenario . 
 2) We do not assess default probabilities.   
In terms of measures, from an EU-level perspectiv e, the diversity of institutional position (between 
EU Member States, candidate and potential candidate countries and wider neighbourhood countries) is crucial in determining the available policy responses to support macro-financial stability in the 
region.   
Measures for EU Member States 
Measures to support systemic banking sect or stability in the EU Member States 
 
In line with the conclusions of the European Council in October 2008, Member States have taken a 
series of steps to support banks and restore confid ence in the EU banking sector. These have included 
measures to recapitalise banks, governme nt guarantees on bank borrowing and asset 
exchanges/purchases by government.  
 
EU balance-of-payments assistance  
The ceiling for the EU balance-of-payments facility  has been quickly raised to EUR 25 billion and 
will be further raised to EUR 50 billion (as agreed  by the European Council of March). Of this 
amount, EUR 15.4 billion are still uncommitted, followi ng the approval of loans to Hungary (EUR 6.5 
billion) and Latvia (EUR 3.1 billion).  
 Measures to support the real economy 
 
At a broader level, the European Economic Recove ry Plan (EERP) endorsed by the December 2008 
European Council proposes several EU-level actions , including simplification of structural and 
cohesion fund spending. The Commission has tabled legislative proposals with the goal of simplifying 
the procedures and accelerating the implementation of programmes financed by the Cohesion Fund, 
Structural Funds and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, in particular for 
investment in infrastructure and in energy efficiency.   Financial and technical assistance from the EIB and the EBRD
 
The EIB has responded actively to confront the crisis.  A significant expansion of the Bank's activity in 
the form of an increase of EUR 15 billion per annum in 2009 and 2010 has been agreed. 
Accompanying this increase are reforms aimed at streamlining and improvin g the Bank's products, 
which combined with funding from other sources should result in additional investment of some EUR 
80 billion over the next two years. The additional Bank activity will focus on SMEs, the energy,  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 149 
 
 
 climate change and infrastructural sectors, and also on supporting investments in catching up 
regions.  The EBRD has also increased its lending capacity fo r 2009 by 20% (to EUR 7 billion) with a view to 
targeting in particular the financial sector in emer ging Europe (and Central Asia). Activities are also 
being organised to focus new projects on the most cr itical areas affected by the crisis, such as the 
corporate sector, energy and infrastructure.  
 EU measures for candidate and potential candidate countries Agreed Accession and Stabilisation and Association Agreements provide for trade liberalisation and 
progressive alignment with EU legislation. The Commission holds a regular economic policy 
dialogue with these countries and has establishe d an economic and fiscal surveillance procedure 
aimed at reinforcing the sustainability of their economy and fiscal framework as well as preparing 
them for EMU entry upon accession.   
In the context of the Instrument  for Pre-Accession (IPA) large am ounts of technical assistance to 
candidate and potential candidate countries have been programmed for the 2007-2013 period 
(EUR 9.1 billion). The Commission is further putting in place a EUR 120 million "Crisis Response 
Package".  
Part of the additional investment foreseen by th e EIB and the EBRD is directed to this group of 
countries.  Macro-financial assistance (MFA) can also be provided to candidate, potential candidate and 
neighborhood countries facing acute financing need. 
Moreover, in order to further support the real economy, the European Commission, the EIB, the 
EBRD and the Council of Europe Development Bank , have jointly developed an Infrastructure 
Initiative that provides technical assistance and co-fi nancing to priority infrastructure investments in 
the transport, energy, environment and social sectors.   
Assistance to other countries in the EU neighborhood 
The EU relations with these countries are go verned by cooperation an d partnership agreements 
(PCA). Since 2005, for Russia and the Western a nd Caucasus CIS countries (Ukraine, Moldova, 
Belarus – potentially –, Armenia, Georgia and A zerbaijan) the PCAs have been complemented by 
deeper integration frameworks – the strategi c partnership with Russia and the European 
Neighborhood Policy based on mutually-agreed ac tion plans, the economic part of which focuses on 
trade liberalisation, structural reforms and sound financial management. The regional dimension of 
this cooperation was reinforced lately with the adven t of the Eastern Partnership. In this context, 
macro-economic dialogues are held with the most important of these countries and are planned to be 
developed further in the wake of the response to the financial crisis. EU macro-financial assistance 
(MFA) can be provided also to these count ries when they face acute financing need.  
The IMF has a strong role to play in helpi ng countries CESE countries when they experience 
financing difficulties, and even more so for countries outsi de the EU. It is also with this in mind that 
the EU is supporting a sizeable increase in IMF r esources so as to strengthen its possibility to 
intervene in the region. The EU stands ready to pr ovide political and technical expertise, but financial 
means at EU level are limited. Bilat eral aid could however play a role. 
The World Bank remains very active in the Easter n neighborhood region notably in the fight against 
poverty. Substantial technical assistance is provided in the framework of policy dialogue and advice. 
The intensity of current EC-World Bank coopera tion ranges from a conditi onality matrix supported 
fully or partly by both institutions (Georgia, Mol dova) to a continuous search of complementarity of 
activities in the same area of intervention (Ukraine, Armenia).  The EBRD could mobilize a full panoply of instrument s including equity and short term debt while the 
EIB has no mandate towards direct bank capitalisation and its activity is limited to the sectors of 
transport, telecommunications, energy and environmen tal infrastructure (the mandate does not cover 
SMEs). An enhanced operational focus on emerging Europe and closer coordination of the activities 
of the EIB, EBRD and other IFIs is even more  necessary for countries in Eastern Europe and WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 150  
 
 Southern Caucasus, which do not benefit from the in stitutional framework provided by the process of 
EU accession and for which there are no obvious inst itutional fora for tackli ng cross-border issues.  
The EU grants financial assistance through the national and regional programmes of the European 
Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI).  
 
Question 5: Secretariat Report, page 14, paragraph 4  
The Secretariat report states that the European Investment Bank (EIB) lends money for projects of 
European interest, such as rail and road links, airp orts, and environmental projects. It also provides 
credit for investment by small businesses.   
1) Does the EIB lend money to foreign investors who are not from EC member countries? I.e., is 
nationality a criteria that is consider ed when reviewing a loan request? 
2) If so, does the EC have any plans to remove rest rictions such as nationality criteria in the near 
future?  
Answer
 
The EIB is active in several countries outside th e EU, such activities making up roughly 10-15% of 
the EIB's total activities. In 2008, EIB financing outside the EU amounted to EUR 6.1 billion and was 
granted to sovereign entities, to local public and pr ivate companies and to local subsidiaries of EU 
companies. The geographical breakdown was as follows: 
 
 EUR million 
EIB financing outside the EU, of which  6,145 
- Pre-accession countries 3,453 
- Mediterranean countries 1,290 
- Eastern Europe, Southern Caucasus and Russia 170 
- ACP/OCT 561 
- South Africa 203 
- Asia and Latin America 469 
 
A significant part of the operations outside the EU are covered by a EU guarantee, while a smaller 
part is at the own risk of the Bank (mostly in P re-Accession countries and, to a more limited extent, in 
Mediterranean countries and in the energy sector). Th e activity in ACP countries uses resources from 
the European Development Fund or u nder guarantee from Member States. 
 
Question 6: Secretariat Report, page 16, paragraph 9  
The EC comitology procedure plays an essential role in the decision-making process of the EC, 
including on trade-related decisions involvi ng anti-dumping investigations and customs -
classification. However, the information available on the discussions that take place are insufficient at 
best for stakeholders. For example, the comitolo gy website of the Customs-Classification Committee 
was last updated in March 2008. 
 
1) In this context, improving the transparency  of these proceedings seems essential. Please 
elaborate what measures are under considerati on for improving the transparency of these 
proceedings. 
2) If no transparency enhancing measure is being presently reviewed, could the EC elaborate on 
why this is the case?  
 
Answer  
The transparency of EC Comitology procedures has b een greatly improved over  the past year with the 
launch of the new Comitology Register on 1st April 2008.This Register, which is available on the 
website http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regcomi tology/index_en.htm , contains background 
information relating to the functionning of the Committees as well as relevant documents that are 
forwarded to the European Parliame nt under its right of scrutiny. In particular, the Register contains 
Committee meeting agendas and minutes as well as draft implementing measures to be adopted by the  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 151 
 
 
 Commission. It therefore enables stakeholders to follow the different stages of preparation of 
implementing measures.  Question 7: Secretariat Report, page 19, paragraph 22  
Based on Article 46 of the EC Treaty, derogations may be invoked with respect to provisions on 
special treatment of foreign nationals on grounds of public policy, public security or public health.  
 1) Can the EC explain what is meant by the term "public security", "public policy", and "public 
health"?  
2) Is the term "public security" analogous with "n ational security" of EC member countries? Could 
the EC elaborate on the similarities and difference in concept and use of these two terms? 
 
Answer
 
Public policy : The concept of public policy is a con cept of Community law which can only be 
interpreted by the ECJ.  The number of cases in which the ECJ has accepted the invocation of public 
policy is quite limited. For example, it was accepte d in a case regarding personal behaviour involving 
drug abuse if such behaviour creates a real and suffic iently serious threat to a fundamental interest of 
society; in a case in which a Member State re garded games simulating the killing of people as a 
violation of human dignity; and in cases of risks fo r fundamental values of social order which can 
result from gambling. On the other hand, the ECJ di d not accept an invocation of public policy with 
regard to national legislation requiring a minimum c apital for certain companies in order to protect 
creditors, or a requirement that a manager of a company must be resident in the territory in which the 
company is established so that notices of fines can be served on him. The ECJ has also rejected as 
"obviously unfounded" the argument that any secu rity firm is capable of constituting a genuine and 
sufficiently serious threat to public policy and public  security. Furthermore, it has stated that the 
mere failure by a national of a Member State to complete the legal form alities concerning access, 
movement and residence of aliens cannot be regarde d as constituting in itself a breach of public 
policy.   Public security:  As in the case of public policy, public security is a concept of Community law 
which can only be interpreted by the ECJ. Ex amples of what the ECJ has recognised as public 
security objectives are: the aim of a Member State to ensure the availability of crude oil, because of 
"the fundamental importance for a country’s existen ce, since not only its economy but above all its 
institutions, its essential public ser vices and even the survival of its inhabitants depend upon [it]", and 
the aim of a Member State to prevent major accide nts in harbours. In a recent judgment where this 
concept was invoked, the ECJ confirmed that Article  46 of the EC Treaty, as a derogation from a 
fundamental principle of the Treaty, ha s to be interpreted  restrictively. 
 
Public health:   The concept of public health is a c oncept of Community law which can only be 
interpreted by the ECJ. So far, the ECJ has not given a specific definition of what constitutes public 
health. However, the relevant case law confirms that, like with the oth er reasons referred to in Article 
46 of the EC Treaty, only in case of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat can the concept of public 
health be invoked. Public health has been refe rred to in cases where Member States claimed that the 
need "of maintaining a balanced medical and hospi tal service open to all" and "the survival of the 
population" justified certain restrictions. 
(2) The concept public security is described above and we refer to that description. Without a 
concrete definition of what is meant under "national  security" we can not elaborate on similarities 
and differences. 
 
Question 8: Secretariat Report, page 21, paragraph 31  
In the context of the DDA negotiations, the EC has o ffered to eliminate its export subsidies by 2013.  
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 152  
 
 1) However, recently the EC revived its export subs idies for dairy products. Could the EC elaborate 
on why it has decided to take this measure? 
2) Could the EC elaborate on its mid-to-long-term st rategy/plan on the elimination of its export 
subsidies? 
3) (Follow-up to Q8-1) How does the re-introduction of export subsidies for dairy products 
conform with the November 2008 standstill commitm ent agreed at the G-20 Financial Summit in 
Washington DC in which many EC Member States were present? 
 
Answer
 
The decision taken to reintroduce export refunds for dairy products concerns a temporary measure 
without any predetermined duration. In the process of allocating these export subsidies the EC will of 
course respect its WTO commitments. The Communi qué agreed at the G-20 Financial Summit in 
Washington DC does not preclude the possibility to resort to WTO compatible export refunds. The EU 
is committed to the 'Doha Development Agenda' (DDA ) negotiations which aim at further liberalising 
trade, substantially cuttin g trade distorting agricultural suppor t and eliminating trade distorting 
export competition practices. The EC stands by its commitment to eliminate export subsidies by 2013 
on condition of the successfu l completion of the DDA. 
 
Question 9: Secretariat Report, page 36, paragraph 11  
According to paragraph 11, the EC applies the Binding Tariff Information (BTI) system, which 
promotes uniform tariff classification for goods impor ted into or exported from its customs territory.  
 
1) Is the BTI system equally applied to newly acceded  EU members as it is applied to other existing 
members?  
2) Have there been cases in which the system was not  been uniformly applied to all the Members of 
the EC? 
3) In the event of a classification dispute among member countries, what is the process/ procedure 
that is applied to resolve the dispute? 
 
Answer  
1) Yes.  Acceding Member States are obliged to apply the Customs Code and Implementing 
Provisions relating to Binding Information from th e day of their accession to the European Union.  
 
2) No.  3) This answer is given in the context of Binding Information as it is not clear from the wording 
of the question whether it refers to simple disag reements over classification or such disagreements 
over classification in advance rulings. 
 The BTI system has been designed in such a way as to eliminate as far as possible the possibilities of 
issuing divergent decisions.  However, not withstan ding its design, the legislation has taken into 
account the possibility of divergent decisions bein g issued and has set out the procedures to be 
followed.  The legislation in question is set out  in Article 9 of the Implementing Provisions 
(Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 2454/93 published in  Official Journal No. L253 of 11 October 
1993).  It must also be stressed that cases of incons istencies in binding information decisions are rare 
and the Commission constantly impresses on Member  States the importance of taking all necessary 
steps to avoid issuing such divergent decisions. 
 
Question 10: Secretariat Report, page 36~37, paragraph 11~12  
Customs authorities of EU member countries have  classified multi-functional IT devices without 
taking into consideration the fast pace of technologi cal development in the IT sector, and as such have 
caused increases in duties for these products. Once a decision on classification is made, it is difficult 
to modify or revise this decision, thereby rest ricting the market access of the product concerned.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 153 
 
 
 Considering that the overall trend in the IT sector is "convergence of various f unctions," it is clear the 
EC's classification criteria on multi-functi onal IT products should be improved.  
 In light of the above, could EC provide information on the current status and future plans to improve 
its classification system/criteria of IT products?   Answer
 
The EC does not classify in order to change a duty  rate. The EC, as required by WTO law, bases its 
customs classification exclusively on the objective c haracteristics of the products being classified. 
When changes in technology have given products ne w or additional functionalities these products in 
many cases became objectively different products  and are classified accordingly. Technological 
development and convergence pose a challenge to most - if not all - customs administrations, not only 
that of the EC. Above and beyond its commitments  to grant zero duty treatment for products covered 
by the 1996 Information Technology Agreement (ITA), the EC has pragmatically addressed some of 
the challenges brought about by convergence arisen  in the past by granting autonomous suspensions 
of duties on certain new IT products. But most import antly, the EC has been trying to engage other 
WTO and ITA members in multi-lateral negotiations which would lead to lasting consensus based 
solution and rules applicable to all. 
 
Question 11: Secretariat Report, page 38, paragraph 14  
The Secretariat Report indicates that the EC applies several types of tariffs: ad valorem rates (89.9%), 
specific (6.5%), compound (2.9%), alternate duti es (0.8%), and "per range tariffs" (0.6%). 
 
1) What is the policy objective in applying "per range tariffs"? 
2) Which goods are subject to the "per range tariffs," and what is the procedure used by the EC to 
select which goods are subject to the "per range ta riffs"? Is there a historical reason involved? 
 
Answer  
Explanation of the entry price system applied for fresh fruit and vegetables trade: Up to and including 1994, imports of 15 differen t fresh fruit and vegetables were subject to the 
reference price regime. In this regime, on top of the ad valorem duty, a specific duty could be levied for products imported from a given origin, when the a verage price of all imports  from this origin was 
below a given reference price. The specific duty was proportional to the difference between the 
reference price and the average price of all imports from this origin. As of 1995, the reference price reg ime was replaced by the entry pr ice system which was accepted as 
part of the Uruguay Round agreement. It is conseque ntly bound. The three basic elements of this 
system, as specified in the agricultural schedule CXL, are: 
 
1. for each product and for each seasonal peri od, the maximum specific duty ever calculated 
under the old system is consolidated into a fixed  maximum specific duty called the 'full tariff 
equivalent'; as such, and in the terms of the UR agreement, the Commission is authorised to levy 
specific duties on all imports of the goods concerned;  
2. for each product and for each seasonal period, a threshold entry price is fixed; consignments 
imported at a price above the threshold are not subj ect to any specific duty at all; as such, the 
Commission grants a permanent concession to importers who respect a price, which is, on average, 
equivalent to the price of the same product on the domestic market.  
3. the maximum specific duty is levied only when the price of the consignment is below 92% of 
the threshold entry price; if the price of the co nsignment is between 100% and 92% of the full 
threshold entry price, the specific duty is progressi ve; it changes in steps of 2%, each of which 
corresponds with a 'price band' equal to 2% of the threshold entry price.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 154  
 
 We would also like to note that:  
Korea refers to "alternate tariffs" as indicated in the report of the WTO Secretariat. The EC has 
objected to the use of such wording because it is wrong. "Alternate tariffs" do not exist in the 
Common Nomenclature tariff types.  We have asked the Secretaria t to clarify and revise this 
expression. 
 
Question 12: Secretariat Report, page 48, paragraph 33  
Are there any specific measures taken to harmonize customs valuation and transfer pricing, and to 
determine the customs value on the transaction?  
1) Is there a cooperation scheme between the Custom s administration and the national tax authority 
on this issue? Are there specific provisions which legally support the harmonization process? 
2) Are there any provisions reflecting the OECD TP gui delines as internal directives or operational 
guidelines, besides the WCO compendium of cu stoms valuation for the purpose of customs 
valuation? 
 Answer
 
In the context of customs valuation, and the implementation of the WTO Agreement on Customs 
Valuation, transfer pricing is regulated by means of  the provisions of Article 1 to that Agreement, and 
the relevant Interpretative Notes. These provisions are also found in the customs legislation of the EC. 
In this context, there is no necessity for the cu stoms authorities to consult with the authorities 
responsible for transfer pricing as an issue arising in the context of taxation, nor to follow their rules 
or guidelines, respectively.   The EC participates in discussions within th e relevant bodies, notably the recent WCO-OECD 
Transfer Pricing Conferences which sought to rais e awareness on Customs Valuation and Transfer 
Pricing, and related initiatives to consider how a pplication of the rules on customs valuation can 
facilitate business and trade, while noting instrume nts such as the OECD Guidelines. Although 
provision has not been made for the application of these Guidelines in a WTO-related context (i.e. the 
application of rules on customs valuation), bo th the business community and a number of WTO 
Members continue to express int erest in exploring the potential synergies in this context. 
 
Question 13: Secretariat Report, page 52, paragraph 53  
It is our understanding that for EC anti-dumping investigations, tests are conducted to confirm 
whether the proposed anti-dumping measures are in line with the wider community interests of the EC 
economy.   
In regard to the EC "Community Interest Test" as it is referred, could the EC elaborate whether it has 
plans to clarify the definition and criteria of the "C ommunity Interest Test"? In particular, are there 
plans in the drawing board to further clarify the test so as to prevent it from being applied in a 
discriminatory manner for different anti-dumping investigation cases involving similar products? 
 
Answer
 
In the responses to issues raised by  the Green Paper consultation the need to the application of the 
Community interest test as currently carried wa s not questioned. There are therefore no plans to 
clarify the definition and criteria of the community interest test.  Question 14: Secretariat Report, page 85, paragraph 163~164  
As there is no single integrated EU patent prot ection system (i.e., a system in which one single 
registration will cover the entire EU Member states), companies seeking to acquire a patent in the EU 
incur relatively high costs during the application and registration process; this is because a patent must 
be filed and registered for each designated EU Me mber State. For this very reason, patent-related 
litigation is also often quite costly.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 155 
 
 
 1) Does the EC concur with this assessment? If not, wh at is the rationale for retaining the current 
system? 
2) Are there plans to introduce an EC -wide integrated patent protection system in the near future? If 
so, could the EC elaborate on the major features of this plan? 
 Answer
 
The European Commission shares the opinion that the current fragmentation of the patent system in 
Europe renders the patent protection complex and costly. Following the 2007 Commission Communication "Enhancing the patent system in Europe" (see http://ec.europa.eu/internal_ma rket/indprop/patent/index_en.htm#system
) major work is ongoing 
regarding (a) creation of a "Community patent" wh ich would be a unitary title with Community-wide 
effect through the filing of a single application and (b) establishment of a unified patent litigation both for European and future Community patents (f or latest development see aforementioned link). 
 
Question 15: Secretariat Report, page 127, paragraph 88  
According to the WTO Secretariat report, a €5 b illion "European green cars initiative" was adopted as 
part of the EC's economic recovery plan.   
1) In this regard, could the EC provide a list of  support measures/initiativ es (other than the one 
referred to in the chapeaux) directed to the au tomotive industry that the EC has approved since 
September, 2008? We would appreciate a detailed list which includes, among others, the name of 
the EC Member state, the total amount approved, period of its implementation, and explanations 
on policy considerations which prompted the approval. 
2) What is the specific criteria or standard used  by the EC in approving the proposed support 
measures/initiatives? 
 Answer
 
Since September 2008, the Commission has not approved  any individual state aid measure directed at 
the automotive industry. This does however not excl ude that Member States have granted aid to the 
car sector under aid schemes during that period.  Member States normally notify to the Commission 
schemes covering the entire industry or a broad rang e of sectors. The Commission has no information 
about the sectoral application of such schemes.  
 
The Commission assesses any aid measure notified to it on the basis of very strict criteria and standards. Unlike most other jurisdictions, th e Commission makes an effort to ensure full 
transparency of the criteria it uses to assess State aid measures.  These criteria and standards are set 
out in the Commission's State aid guidelines and fr ameworks, which are published in the Official 
Journal and which are also publicly accessible vi a DG Competition's website. The Commission has 
no specific criteria for the assessment of aid me asures directed at the automotive industry. Aid 
measures directed at the automo tive industry are assessed on the basis of normal criteria applicable 
to aid measures for all sectors. 
 
Question 16: Secretariat Report, page 143~144, paragraph 137~139  
Korea would appreciate the following information from the EC: 
 
1) Updated information on the implem entation status of the EU telecoms regulatory framework in 
each EU member country. Specifically, updated information on the progress of implementation 
in the areas of competition policy, investment polic y and other relevant market access policies in 
the telecommunications market. 
2) The implementation status of the EU telecoms regulatory framework in the new EU member 
countries such as Bulgaria and Romania. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 156  
 
 Answer
 
Each year, the European Commission drafts and publishes a progress report on the single European 
electronic communications market. The 14th Progress Report, which was released on 25 March 2009, 
presents the state of play in the telecoms mar ket for 2008 at EU level and for each Member State, 
including the new Member States, Bulgaria and Romania. The report can be found at: 
www.ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/eco mm/library/communications_reports/annualreports/
14th/index_en.htm . 
 
Question 17: Secretariat Report, page 144, paragraph 141  
Korea would appreciate receiving further updated information on the on-going Telecoms Reform 
Package debate within the European Parliament as mentioned in Paragraph 141 of the Secretariat 
report.  How is the EC addressing the issue of competition bottlenecks, particularly in light of recent 
economic difficulties?  Answer
 
The next step for the EU Telecoms Package is now  a vote in second reading in the plenary of the 
European Parliament (expected for early April); in the meantime informal  "trilogue meetings" 
between European Parliament, Commission and Counc il are ongoing. The Reform of the EU Telecom 
Package is scheduled to be completed in J une 2009 with its adoption by the Council.  
 
The adoption of the revised regulatory framework in  the Member States will depend on the speed of 
the legislative process there, but the Commission is hopeful that it could become effective from 2010. 
 The process can be followed at:  http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/ policy/ecomm/tomorrow/ next/index_en.htm 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindB yProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2007/0247 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindB yProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2007/0248 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindB yProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2007/0249 
 As part of the reform of the EU regulatory fr amework for electronic communications networks and 
services which is currently being negotiated by the co-legislators (the European Parliament and the 
Council), the Commission has proposed to expressl y give national regulatory authorities the 
possibility to impose functional separation when the other existing obligations have failed to improve 
competition. Functional separation is a remed y which could address persistent competition 
bottlenecks, in particular in access markets, and is implemented by means of the separation of the 
infrastructures and services divisions of a vertically in tegrated dominant operator, but does not entail 
any change of ownership. 
 The imposition of functional separatio n should be subject to an impact a ssessment of that remedy on 
investment and other socio-economic variables at th e level of the undertaking concerned and of the 
sector as a whole. In this way, the national regulatory authorities will have to take into account the situation of the telecoms sector as  well as the economic environment. 
 
It is also worth noting that it is possible fo r national regulatory authorities to impose functional 
separation, even under the regulatory framework that  is in force today. As the remedy of functional 
separation would go beyond the scope of remedies presently foreseen in Articles 9-13 of the Access 
Directive, it would need to be subject to Commissi on scrutiny. This is essential to ensure an effective 
and consistent regulatory appr oach in the EU, to the benefit of the internal market.  
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 157 
 
 
 KOREA II  
 
Question 1 : Secretariat Report, page 19, paragraph 22 
Despite the stipulations of paragraph 22, it is our  understanding that labor regulations are stringent 
and thus act to hinder business activities within the EC. For example, in Germany foreign employees 
may only be hired if he/she has relevant experiences in the field and only after the search for a 
German applicant has not produced any notable resu lts. In the case of Poland, foreign work permits 
can be issued or renewed only after a company h as employed more than two employees who do not 
require work permits (generally Polis h nationals) for more than one year. 
 
In regards to the above, are there any plans to amend such practices—including local employee hiring 
requirements, limits on the number of employees, and regulations concerning foreign employees? 
 
Answer  
As the scope of the question goes beyond mode 4, it  falls outside the scope of the present Trade Policy 
Review. 
 
Question 2: Secretariat Report, page 19, paragraph 22  
EC members in general seem to have a complicat ed process concerning the issuance and re-issuance 
of visas and work/stay permits. Not only is it the cas e that it takes over 2~3 months for proceeding, 
but their validity period is only for one to two years. Thus, Intra-corporate transferees who are 
dispatched to EC member countries often need to  renew their visas or work/stay permits twice or 
three times during their tour of duty. Furthermore, in  some cases the visa issuance is stipulated to be 
implemented by its diplomatic mission in Korea, thus  the dispatched person must return to Seoul to 
renew his/her visa.   
For reference, it is our understanding that the above  mentioned practices are being implemented – in 
varying degrees - in Germany, Spain, Austria,  France, Czech Republic, Portugal, Poland, and 
Hungary.  
1) In this regard, does the EC/EC Member States ha ve plans to streamline the visa issuance and 
renewal process/procedures? 
2) Could the EC review the possibility of gran ting quasi-citizenship for foreign business people 
working in the EC? 
 
Answer
 
As visa-related requirements do not fall within th e scope of GATS liberalisation the question falls 
outside the scope of the Trade Policy Review.    
Question 3 : Secretariat Report, page 19, paragraph 22  
The business environment for foreign investors would be  greatly enhanced if documents drafted in the 
language of their mother country (i.e., non-EC language) would be recognized.  
 
1) In this context, would the EC contemplate r ecognizing documents notarized outside the EC as 
valid and legal? 
2) If willing to pursue the above option, what is th e EC’s view on process necessary to materialize 
the initiative? 
 Answer:
 
The meaning of the term "notarized" is not quite cl ear in terms of the kind of procedure it relates to. 
In any case, the EC is not at present considering such  option. The issue falls wi thin the competence of 
EU Member States which are all parties to the Hague Convention of 5 X 1961 abolishing the requirement of legalization of foreign public documents. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 158  
 
 Question 4: Secretariat Report, page 36, paragraph 11  
Certain members of the EU have re-classified GPS phones under the HS Heading 8526, and DMB 
phones under the HS Heading 8528, thereby imposing tariff rates of 3.7% and 14% respectively. It is the strong view of Korea that such measures/decisi ons run counter to technological progress and must 
be rectified. 
 
1) In connection to the above, could the EC elabor ate on the recent developments within the EC 
concerning the re-classification of mobile phones? 
 Germany categorizes MP3 players with added radio functions as "radios" and imposes a high tariff 
rate of 14 percent, whereas only a 4 percent tariff applies to other MP3 players. Furthermore, some 
EC members categorize LCD monitors for medical and aircraft flight c ontrol purposes (duty-free 
items) as "televisions" thereby imposing a high tariff rate of 14 percent. 
2) What is the rationale for this classification? 
3) Will the EC/EC Member states consider re-classi fying the products me ntioned above to its 
"normal" category as an MP-3 player and a LCD monitor? 
 Even though the same products are involved, all manufacturers must apply separately for 
classification of their products to determine the level of tariffs that will apply to those products. This 
individual process is costly and time consuming.   
4) Would the EC consider simplifying its classification procedures by assessing the same tariff 
levels for similar items? 
 Spain currently levies a 5.2 percent tariff on large co ntainers of printed circuit board (PCB), while an 
8 percent tariff applies to small quantities of PCB.  
 
5) What are the grounds for this differentia l application of tariffs on PCB imports? 
6) Would Spain consider abolishing this practice?  
 Instances of abuse of authority by Romanian custom s authorities have been reported by our industry. 
It is the strong view of Korea that customs administration must be transparent, predictable and 
corruption-free so as to promote trade. 
 
7) In this context, could the EC elaborate on the me asures it has taken (and will take) to ensure that 
the customs administration in the new member stat es are transparent, predictable and corruption-
free? 
 
Despite the adoption and implementation of EC TARI C as the official customs procedures for the 
entire EC member states, apparently the full harmonization of customs procedures has not yet been fully achieved; instances where the customs offices of several member states apply their own rules 
and practices have been reported. This has given rise  to occurrences such as differential application of 
tariffs, arbitrary tariff classification systems, and abuses of authority by customs officials.  
 
8) What is the assessment of the EC with respect to this issue? 
9) In light of the direct authority of the EC over this matter, are plans in the making to remedy the 
situation (especially in the new member states)?  
10) If so, what are the measures being contemplated? 
 
Answer:
 
The EC would like to recall that Korea is a contra cting party to the International Convention on the 
Harmonized Commodity Description and that only one  of the issues referred to by Korea has been 
subject to the dispute settlement mechanism foreseen  in Article 10 of that Convention, namely the  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 159 
 
 
 classification of apparatus which both functions  as mobile telephones and reception apparatus for 
television.  With regard to the other cases presented by Korea , the EC will examine these when Korea has 
provided the necessary details. In any event the EC reminds Korea that with regard to individual classification cases these are 
subject to judicial review in the EC if requested by the importer in question.  
According to EC law binding tariff information is  issued to an individual trader and constitutes a 
decision on the correct classification of a particular  product. It is not a decision as to whether a 
particular duty rate is to be applied or not. 
 
Question 5: Secretariat Report, page 38, paragraph 14  
Romania encourages the exports of its ships to count ries outside the EC by applying lower tariffs on 
steel plates for ships built for delivery to a non- EC country. This seems to be a measure that 
discriminates against investors who seek to do business within the EC.  
1) Could the EC/Romania explain th is practice and its rationale?  
2) In EC/Romania’s view, is this a practice that discriminates against investors who seek to do 
business with EC customers? 
3) Does the EC have any plans to amend such practices?  
 
Answer
 
As a result of the Uruguay Round multilateral tariff negotiations, products of steel (except some 
primary products) classifiable in chapter 72 of the Combined Nome nclature are duty free 
(irrespective of their use). In order to be able to provide a more specific answer further details on the 
exact products (nomenclature classification) Korea refers to would be required,  
 
Question 6: Secretariat Report, page 46, paragraph 25  
Hungary applies differential registration taxes to  imported secondhand cars, differing vis-à-vis its 
origin (EC member states vs non-EC member state).   
1) Could the EC/Hungary confirm whether this is true? If yes, could the EC/Hungary provide the 
rationale for this measure?  
2) Does Hungary have any plans to amend this practice? 
 
Answer
 
1) Hungary applies since 1 February 2004 regis tration taxes on all passenger cars (new and 
used) presented for first registration in its territo ry. These taxes are calculated on the basis of the 
following three elements: 1) engine capacity, 2) en gine type (diesel or petrol) and 3) EU emission 
standards (Euro-norms) corresponding to each partic ular car. The tax amount is calculated 
according to flat rate scales, wh ich are differentiated on the basis of the three elements mentioned 
above. These scales show the tax amount to be paid when the car is new and are published and are 
available to all interested persons. If a used car is presented for first registration in Hu ngary the tax amount to be paid is reduced on the 
basis of a depreciation scale mainly based on the age of the car. The Commission did not receive any 
information so far that Hungary differentiates reg istration taxes payable upon first registration of 
used cars according to their origin (EC and no n EC). However, if Korea has evidence that Hungary 
applies registration taxes in a discriminato ry manner, the Commission could exercise its 
responsibility to examine the compatibility of national laws with regard to the provisions of Article 90 
of the EC Treaty. 
 2) Hungary has not informed the Commission so far of any plans aimed at amending national legislation on registration taxes applicable on passenger cars. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 160  
 
 Question 7: Secretariat Report, page 47, paragraph 31  
Each EC member state has a different tariff refund procedure, and exporters applying for refunds are 
subject to approval from the EC as well as a separ ate procedure with each member state. Problems 
associated with this process have been reported from our industry with regards to Poland and 
Hungary, among others. In this context, a harm onize set of rules concerning the tariff refund 
process/procedure would be beneficial to trade. 
 
1) Does the EC concur with this view?  
2) What measures have the EC taken (or will take) to harmonize its tariff refund process? 
 Answer
 
The Commission understands that Korea complains about the procedure for repayment or remission 
of import duties in the EC. The EC cannot concur wi th the view that a harmonize set of rules would be  
beneficial to trade as in fact such an harmonized set  of rules does actually already exist at present. 
These rules are provided for in Articles 235-242 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2913/92 of 
12 October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L302, 19.10.1992) and in 
Articles 877-912 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No. 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Counc il Regulation (EEC) No. 2913/92 establishing the 
Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993). The implementing rules notably establish the actual procedure to be followed in order to apply for repayment/remission. It  is therefore not correct 
to consider that there is no harmonized set of rul es in the EC in this fie ld. Moreover, for most 
sensitive issues, the Commission has established gui delines in order to ensure a uniform application 
of the rules applicable: see in particular the guidelines on the application of Articles 220(2)(b) and 
239 of the Community Customs Code, accessible on the Commission website: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/doc uments/customs/procedural_aspects/general/debt/
guidelines_en.pdf. 
And a document which describes the impact of tariff cl assification regulations on the provisions of the 
Code governing repayment/remission and post-clearan ce recovery of duties; this last document is 
also available on the Commission website: http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/doc uments/customs/procedural_aspects/general/debt/
impact_tariff_en.pdf 
 
Question 8: Secretariat Report, page 49, paragraph 36  
The yarn-forward rule applies to textiles and apparel.  According to this criterion, an item can be said 
to have originated in the EC only if the fiber a nd yarn used to produce the item originated and was 
processed in the EC.   
1) Does the EC have any plans to revise this rule which has in effect acted to discourage market 
access into the EC market? 
 Electronic and electrical products are considered to have originated in the EC only if 45 percent of 
their parts were produced in the EC . Only then are they exempted from tariffs and excluded from the 
list of banned import items. However, this 45 pe rcent VAT criterion is higher than the global 
standard, and its strict enforcement places an ex cessive cost burden on companies outside the EC.  
2) What is the rationale for setting such a high VAT criterion above and beyond the generally 
accepted global standard? 
3) Does the EC have any plans to reduce its VAT criterion for electronic and electrical products? 
 
The EC employs a negative list scheme to determine ru le of origin criteria for certain items such as 
photocopy machines. We are of the view that this is a violation of the Rules of Origin set forth in the 
WTO Agreement, which employs a positive standard.   
4) What is the EC's view on this matter?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 161 
 
 
 Answer  
1) While the negotiations for the harmonisation of non preferential origin rules are ongoing, the 
EC refrains from amending its rules.  2) It is not clear what is meant by "gen erally accepted global standard". Until the WTO 
Harmonisation Work Program is finalised, Members are free to determine their own non preferential 
rules of origin. The EC applies its non preferential rules of origin for the purposes of trade defence 
and considers a 45% added value criterion a rea sonable way to define "last substantial 
transformation", in accordance with  the Agreement on Rules of Origin. 
 
3) While the negotiations for the harmonisation of non preferential origin rules are ongoing, the 
EC refrains from amending its rules.  4) The principal rule to obtain the origin is st ated in Article 24 of the Community Customs Code 
(Regulation (EEC) 2913/92): "last, substantial, economically justified processing or working in an 
undertaking equipped for that purpose and resulti ng in the manufacture of a new product or 
representing an important stage of manufacture."  Th e provision referred to in the Question merely 
serves as a clarification, as allowed by Article  2 (f) of the Agreement on Rules of Origin. 
 
Question 9: Secretariat Report, page 56, paragraph 63 
As stated in paragraph 63, the technical regulations , standards, and conformity assessment procedures 
of the EC have not been fully harmonized in all sectors.  
In connection to this point, Korean pharmaceutical companies seeking to open a branch in the EC or 
export pharmaceutical products into the EC fi nd it quite difficult and challenging to find the 
necessary, pertinent and needed informatio n on drug regulatory approval procedures, 
pharmacovigilance procedures, clinical trials for dr ug regulatory approval and so forth, all of which 
vary for each EU member state. 
 
1) Is there a "one-stop" enquiry point/focal point within the EC or a enquiry point/focal point within 
each EC member state that may furnish these type  of information and assist when requested by 
industry?  
2) In connection to Q9-1, could the EC provide an updated list of enquiry points/focal points? 
 
As for the fees for bioequivalence tests and othe r general registration and approval processes, our 
industry has informed us that the fees charged by the EC member states ar e much costlier and more 
complicated vis-à-vis other countries.  
3) Does the EC agree with this assessment? 
4) If the answer is "yes" to Q-3, could the EC provi de data which would show that the fees charged 
by the EC member states are in par with ot her countries such as the US, Canada, and Japan? 
 
Answer
 
(1  Marketing authorisations for medicinal pro ducts in the European Union can be granted 
either through the centralised procedure or th rough other procedures. Under the centralised 
procedure , a single application is submitted to the Eu ropean Medicines Agency (‘EMEA’) which may 
then lead to the granting of a European marketi ng authorisation by the European Commission which 
is valid throughout the EU. As regards the oth er forms of marketing authorisations, there are purely 
national procedures  where the authorisation is granted by  one Member State for products to be 
marketed only in that country. In addition, there is the mutual recognition procedure , which is based 
on the principle of recognition of already existing national marketing authorisations by one or more Member States. Finally, there is the decentralised procedure
 where an application for authorisation is 
submitted simultaneously to several Member States, one of which is chosen as the ‘reference Member WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 162  
 
 State’. At the end of this procedure, national ma rketing authorisations are granted in the reference 
and in the concerned Member States.  (2) For the centralised pr ocedure, the enquiry point/focal point is the EMEA: 
http://www.emea.europa.eu/. For the other procedu res, the following web-page of the Heads of 
Medicines Agencies in the EU provides for contac t points to the competent national authorities in all 
EU Member States and the EEA countries: http://www.hma.eu/.  (3  According to the information at its disposal, the European Commission is not aware that the fees for general registration and approval processes for medicinal products would be much costlier in 
the EU compared to other regions with simila r regulatory systems. The underlying principle as 
regards the level of fees for the centralised proce dure is that the fees should be proportionate to the 
services provided.  (4) The individual Member States of the EU are responsible for determining the level of fees for 
national marketing authorisation applications as th ese fees are not harmonised in the EU. As regards 
centralised procedure, the fees are laid down in  Council Regulation (EC) No 297/95 on fees payable 
to the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medi cinal Products, as subs equently amended (the 
consolidated version of this Regulation can be found on: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/pharmaceutical s/eudralex/vol1/reg_1995_297_consol/reg_1995_297_c
onsol_en.pdf). 
 
Question 10: Secretariat Report, page 52, paragraph 53  
In regards to the anti-dumping (AD) investigation on imports of Polyester Staple Fiber (PSF), the EC 
has decided to terminate the AD investigation on imports of PSF originating from Malaysia and 
Taiwan, but it has maintained the investigation on imports of PSF originating from Korea. In this 
regard, Korea has strong concerns over the discriminat ory nature of the actions taken by the EC with 
respect to this issue. Due to this discriminator y measure of the EC, PSF originating from Korea are 
now at a disadvantage vis-à-vis PSF orig inating from Malaysia and Taiwan 
 
1) What is the current status of play conc erning the AD investigation on imports of PSF? 
2) What is the reason the EC decided to term inate the AD investigation on imports of PSF 
originating from Malaysia and Taiwan? 
3) Why were imports of PSF originating fro m Korea excluded from termination of AD 
investigations? Is this not discriminator y treatment on PSF originating from Korea? 
4) Will the EC move to terminate its AD dumpi ng investigation/duties on PSF originating from 
Korea in the near future? 
 
Answer
 
1) At present, there is no ongoing investigation on imports of polyester staple fiber originating from Korea.  2) Please refer to Commission decision 2007/430 (OJ L 160 of 21.6.2007). 
 
3) Please refer to Council Regulation 893/2008  (OJ 247 of 16.9.2008).  4) These duties are bound to expire in March 2010 unless they are subject to review.  
 
KOREA III
 
 
Question 1: Secretariat Report, page 56, paragraph 63  
As the EC lacks a uniform technology standard fo r commercial vehicles, exporters to EC countries 
have to implement individual procedures for each EC Member state.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 163 
 
 
 1) Does the EC have plans to set a uniform t echnology standard for commercial vehicles? 
 
Answer  
While the EC Whole Vehicle Type-Approval (WVTA) system applies to passenger cars on a 
mandatory basis since January 1998, it is indeed tr ue that with respect to commercial vehicles only 
partial harmonisation has been achieved so far.  However, Directive 2007/46/EC, the new framework 
Directive for motor vehicles adopted in 2007 and whic h will have to be implemented by Member 
States by 29 April 2009, makes the EC WVTA mandat ory for all the remaining categories of motor 
vehicles in stages from 2009 to 2014 according to the timetable set out in its Annex XIX.  
 Cars produced in the EC region can be export ed (to non-EC areas) as long as they meet 
discretionary/voluntary safety standards. In cont rast, cars manufactured from outside the EC region 
must meet 60 different EC safety standards and receive  type approval before being able to export into 
the EC. This places a much heavier burden on non-EC companies.  
2) In regard to type approval and safety inspecti ons, does the EC have any plans to exempt car 
exporters from duplicative inspections on a reciprocal basis? 
 
Answer:
 
Cars produced in the EC have to co mply with the standards in force in  third countries in order to be 
exported to those countries, as well as cars type -approved, registered or so ld in the EC have to 
comply with the standards in force in the EC, regar dless of their country of production. However, the 
EC recognises, with respect to the vast majority of its safety standards, equivalence between UNECE 
Regulations and the corresponding EC Directives or  Regulations. This avoids duplication of 
administrative and test procedures. Such a system app lies on a multilateral basis with respect to all 
the countries signatory to the 1958 Agreement, incl uding Korea, and having acceded to the UNECE 
Regulations which are recognised as be ing equivalent to EC requirements. 
We also consider that the concept of "voluntary/ discretionary standards" has to be considered with 
great attention, since this is  – to our knowledge – not the case in many regulatory systems. 
 
Question 2: Secretariat Report, page 56, paragraph 65  
Currently, the requirement to carry the European  Commission’s "CE" mark applies to 22 items; 
however, the delay in the enactment of a consolidat ed law means that standardization, testing and 
certification procedures are different among EC member states. To complement the CE mark, different EC countries are introducing stricter certif ication systems and additional conformity marks. 
Examples include France’s NF mark, Germany’s GS (for machinery), VDE (for electronics) and 
TUEV, Italy’s DECREES and Spain’s ITV.  
 
1) Does the EC have any plans to adopt a consolid ated law/regulation regarding the CE mark, and 
give this EC-level uniform system priority over the additional certification systems that are in place in different EC member countries? 
 Currently, only the appointed conformity assessm ent agencies within the EC region have the 
authority to conduct tests and gi ve final approval to products seeking the CE mark. This places a 
significant burden on companies in non-EC countries in  terms of time and cost, especially small and 
mid-size enterprises.   2) Are there plans within the EC to consider declaring as equivalent similar conformity marks 
issued in other countries? 
3) In this regard, will the EC examine the possib ility of concluding additio nal MRAs with non-EC 
countries in order to harmonize the EC testing and certification system with those of its counterparts? 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 164  
 
 To operate on public roads, wheel-type construction machinery requires a different conformity mark 
depending on the importing country—for example, Germany’s StvZo, Italy’s DECREES or Spain’s 
ITV. This practice places a burden on non-EC exporters.  4) Does the EC have any plans to ease regulations so that machinery affixed with the CE mark can 
operate on public roads without obtaining sep arate certification from the individual EC 
countries?  
 
Answer
 
2) European legislation makes a wide use of th e Supplier's Declaration of Conformity for a 
major part of products marketed in the Single Eu ropean market. According to this, no compulsory 
third party certification is needed prior to putting products to the market. Th is reduces enormously 
costs and time for putting products on the market. The European Single Market is the only world 
market foreseeing such an extensive use of SDoC  and therefore consequently  reducing burdens for 
manufacturers, irrespectively of their geographical location. 
 
Supplier’ s Declaration of Conformity leads to the possibility of affixing the CE marking without the 
need of availing of the service of a Conformity Asse ssment Body (based in the EC or elsewhere).  
 
High risk products, which are a minority, still require  compulsory third party certification and this 
can only be run by CABs based on the EU territory.  
However, there are some opportunities for foreign CABs  to run these texts (please see answer to Q 40 
and 41 from Canada). 
 
Currently the EC is not considering introducing equivalence between the CE marking and others. 
 
3) Currently the EC is not considering the establishment of any new additional MRAs. 
 
Question 3: Secretariat Report, page 57, paragraph 68  
We have been informed that Denmark, Sweden and Finland are using the Nordic Swan mark in 
addition to the EC eco-label, and that government al organizations in those three countries give 
preference to goods affixed with that mark when they make purchases.  
 
1) Could the EC elaborate on this practice by these 3 countries? What is the legal basis for this type 
of governmental preference for the Nordic Swan mark? 
2) How is this practice in conformity with the EC’s WTO GPA obligations? 
 
In accordance with the Packaging an d Packaging Waste (PPW) Directive,  the EC bans the use of all 
packaging materials that do not meet EC environmen tal standards, and has increased the rate at which 
packaging materials must be recycled. In this rega rd, we have been informed that some EC member 
states are taking further excessive measures that hinder trade such as the implementation of the 
deposit system and the product lia bility law on the grounds of PPW. 
 
3) Could the EC explain the rationale for adopting such measures? 
4) Will the EC consider taking the necessary correc tive measures so as to ensure that these 
measures do not hinder normal trade? 
 Answer:
 
1-2) Green Public Procurement is only a vol untary policy on which the European Commission has 
provided guidance for contracting authorities inter alia in its Communication "Public Procurement 
for a Better Environment", adopted in July 2008. This Communication is accompanied by a web-based toolkit which gives practical examples of criteria which could be included in a tender document  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 165 
 
 
 when procuring specific products which have b een identified as most suitable for greening. 
Nevertheless, the purchase of sustainable goo ds, works and services re mains an option for 
contracting authorities as long as it is carried out in full respect of the Pub lic Procurement Directives 
and the principles of equality, transparency and non-discrimination.  
Under the EU procurement directives the eco-labels may be used in public procurement – both as a 
source for environmental criteria for specifications or the award phase, and as a form of verification 
provided that a number of conditions are met: The procuring entities cannot require that purchased  products/services bear the eco-label as such. 
They can, however, request that products comply  with underlying technical specifications, and then 
recognise the label as one possible (not exclusive) wa y for the bidder to prove compliance of its bid 
with the said specifications. All other means of proof must be accepted.  
 Public purchasers are allowed to make use of th e environmental information contained in eco-
labelling schemes (and underlying the eco-label) if they meet the following conditions: 
- Specifications are appropriate to define the char acteristics of the supp lies or services or the 
production processes, i.e. criteria that are linked  to the subject matter of the contract.   
- Requirements for the label are drawn up on the basis of scientific information.  - Requirements for the label are adopted using a pr ocedure in which all st akeholders, such as 
government bodies, consumers, manufacturers, di stributors and environmental organisations, 
can participate.  
- They are accessible to all interested parties.  
 
The above described criteria are valid for both the EU eco-label "The EU Flower" and the Scandinavian label "Nordic Swan" . Products and services origina ting from outside the European 
Economic Area can also be awar ded the EU Eco-label "The EU Flower" and/or the "Nordic Swan" 
under exactly the same conditions as their EEA e quivalents. All competito rs are therefore offered 
equal opportunities. Therefore the EC's GPA commitments, inscribed in Ar ticle III, Article VI and Article VIII are upheld.  
 3 )All packaging placed on the EU market has to  comply with the provisions of the EC 
Packaging Directive 94/62/EC, in particular its Annex II on Essential Requirements on the 
composition and the reusable and recoverable (including recyclable) nature of packaging. If such 
conditions are fulfilled, the placing of packaging on  the market shall not be impeded under the terms 
of Article 18 of Directive. Member States ar e however allowed to organize the collection, reuse, 
recovery and recycling of packaging in different wa ys. This includes the possibility to establish 
deposit systems. However, such systems need to be  justified by legitimate objectives, such as the 
protection of the environment. To allow the Commission to ensure that such systems are not 
unjustified obstacles to trade, Member States are bound to notify to the Commission the drafts of 
measures which they intend to adopt within the fram ework of the Directive, in the context of the 
notification procedure foreseen under EC  Directive 98/34/EC.  This procedure has made it possible to 
resolve many market access issues  before proposed legislation was adopted and might have created 
problems in practice. 
 
4) The European Commission will continue to closely monitor the correct implementation of 
relevant EC legislation and is committed to reacti ng to any measures which are liable to disrupt the 
functioning of the internal market and which are not  justified for environmental protection objectives. 
 
Question 4: Secretariat Report, page 57, paragraph 70  
In accordance with the product liability law, all garment makers must attach washing instruction 
labels to their products. Currently, the only confor mity assessment body that the EC approves for this 
purpose is GENETEX, a regional agency.  
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 166  
 
 1) Does the EC have plans to designate  other agencies for this task?  
2) If the answer is ‘yes’, would an agency not locat ed within the EC be eligible for designation? 
3) If the answer is ‘no’, could the EC  elaborate on why this is the case? 
4) Alternatively, will the EC be ready to  enter into an MRA for this area? 
5) If the answer is ‘no’, what hinders the decision to enter in MRA negotiations? 
 
Answer
 
In the EU care labelling is not compulsory.  In practice, textile and clothing manufacturers and retailers usually label their textile products with care instructions on a vol untary basis by using one 
of the different private owned standards, existing in the market (ISO 3758 based on pictograms and 
symbols, GENETEC, or American standards based on ASTM symbols and/or written descriptions). 
The large majority of producers and retaillers label th eir products, as they consider that it is a very 
useful information for the consumers and  that otherwise they loose their position in the market.   The fact that care labelling is not compulsory means  that, when a producer, distributor or importer 
informs with a care labelling  commits himself on  the truthiness of the information and has full 
responsibility in case of non compliance.  The GENETEC standards is just the most used form of labelling in EU.  Several meetings with Member States’ experts and ot her stakeholders showed that there is a large 
consensus on the fact that no major problems with the fact that there is not compulsory regulation 
about care instructions lbelling.  In this cone txt the Commission has no intention to propose any  
harmonised legislation on care labelling, nor to ban cu rrent labelling instructions used in the market 
on a voluntary basis.  
Question 5: Secretariat Report, page 57, paragraph 70  
In principle, EC environmental re gulations apply to both EC and non-EC companies alike. In reality, 
however, these regulations seem to be applied in  a discriminatory manner and function as disguised 
non-tariff barriers. For example, measures requiring e xporters to receive certification specifically/only 
from EC assessment bodies and to sign agreements w ith recycling companies in the EC region can be 
seen as discriminatory.  
 
1) In connection to the above, c ould the EC elaborate on whether the EC deems the "grace period" 
granted to non-EC companies before the implem entation of its new/ amended environmental 
regulations are sufficient? 
2) Will the EC consider granting a longer ‘grace period’ in the future? 
3) Could the EC confirm whether the individual EC member states are permitted to enact 
further/more stringent e nvironmental regulations?  
4) If yes, how does the EC ensure that these individual environmental regulations are not too 
stringent thereby limiting trade?  
 
Answer
 
The European Community is keen to ensure that its legislation is in accordance with WTO obligations 
and to avoid that any measures are applied in a m anner which would constitute a means of arbitrary 
or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restric tion on international trade. Decisions on delays 
with respect to the entry into fo rce and implementation of EC legislation are taken on a case-by-case 
basis, taking account of an ex ante assessment of the economic, environmental and social impacts of 
envisaged measures. The EC Treaty provides t hat Member States may maintain or adopt more 
stringent environmental measures than provided in EC  legislation. However, these measures must be 
notified to and in some cases approved by the Commissi on, and they must be compatible with the EC 
Treaty. Should any such measures be incompatible w ith the EC Treaty (and international obligations  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 167 
 
 
 assumed by the European Community), the Commissi on can start an infringe ment procedure against 
the relevant Member State and bring it before the European Court of Justice. 
 
Question 6: Secretariat Report, page 58~60, paragraph 73~75  
1) Could the EC confirm whether according to EC re gulations it is not mandatory for countries to 
share information about environmental toxicity.  
 When registering with REACH, there is a pre-re gistration process as well as a registration process. 
 2) Could the EC elaborate on the purpose of the pre-registration process? 
3) What is the role of the "pre-registration number" in regards to customs clearance?  
4) Could the EC clarify how the number is used a nd what the actual process is through which the 
"pre-registration number" is used in customs clearance? 
 When registering chemicals with the European Ch emicals Agency (ECHA), exorbitant fees have to 
be paid. Furthermore, additional cost relating to "Only Representativ e" and consulting costs must be 
paid separately. This places a great burden on exporters, in particular the SMEs.   5) Does the EC have any plans to reduce this burden and to promote participation in trade by SMEs 
(either in the regulatory framewo rk and/or procedural aspects)? 
 
Several CSA tools are being used to detail expos ure scenarios; these include EUSES, ECETOC TRA, 
EMKG/BAuA-COSHH and ConsExpo. However, it is di fficult to know which tool is best for this 
purpose, and which tool is expected of by ECHA. In  this context, Korea is of the view that ECHA 
should standardize the process of registration.   
6) What is the view of the EC on this issue? 
7) Could the EC provide the necessary informati on with respect to the registration process? 
 In light of the complex nature of the EC regula tions, a more pro-active endeavor of the EC is 
necessary and desired so as to prevent any unintende d loss to exporters, especially the SMEs of non-
EC countries who have limited resources. 
 
8) What measures have been taken by the EC to ensu re that foreign exporters are well aware of the 
EC’s regulations? 
9) Does the EC presently operate a web-based info rmation dissemination services in English? If 
yes, could the EC provide its URL? 
 
Answer
 
1) REACH requires registrants to share studies, w ith a view to avoid unnecessary animal testing.  
It is noted that REACH does not impose any obligation on third countries.  2-4) The pre-registration process is intended to id entify potential registrants of the same substance 
with a view to facilitate the formation of the Substa nce Information Exchange Fora which, in turn, are 
designed to facilitate the data sharing and prepar ation for the joint submission of registration 
dossiers.  Only the legal entities that have pre-registered can benefit from the extended registration deadlines of 
Article 23 of REACH. The pre-registration number is the proof that a substance has been pre-
registered.  It is noted that registration or pre-reg istration of substances manuf actured or imported in 
the EU in quantities at and above 1 tonne/ year is mandatory since 1 July 2008.  As part of the 
enforcement of REACH, customs authorities may request  evidence that the substance is in compliance 
with REACH (i.e. that it has been  registered or pre-registered). WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 168  
 
 5) The level of the fees that must be paid in connection with registration has been fixed taking 
into account the related workload for the Agency.  Mo reover, it is noted that the expected income from 
fees would not be sufficient to cover the estimated co sts, which is why a subs tantial contribution from 
the Community budget is also foreseen.  
It is also noted that non-EU manufacturers are not required to register, nor do they have to pay 
registration fees.  To the extent that they want to  appoint, on a voluntary basis, an only representative, 
they may also be eligible for the significant reduc tions (up to 90%) that are foreseen for SMEs. 
 6-7)  Extensive information on the registration pr ocess is publicly available at ECHA’ s website.  In 
particular, we refer to the guidance on registration 
(http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/docs/guidance_doc ument/registration_en.pdf?vers=26_11_08).  An 
extensive guidance document on how to make the CSA and to document it in CSR is also available on 
the same web-site.  
8-9) A vast effort has been done to make ava ilable free of charge to any operator worldwide 
guidance, navigator, other tools and materials to explain REACH.  An unprecedented amount of information about the REACH Regulation can be fo und at the website of the European’s Chemicals 
Agency.  (http://guidance.echa.europa.eu/index_en.htm).    It is also noted that the EC has spent 
significant resources in technical assistance to third countries. 
 
Question 7: Secretariat Report, page 65, paragraph 96  
In regards to the requirement by some EC memb er countries which require the use of their own 
national language in the governme nt procurement and bidding process, does the EC have any plans to 
require that the same information be offered in a nother official language of the EC such as English? 
 
Answer
 
All the procurement covered by the EC's commitm ents under the GPA are published in the Official 
Journal of the European Union and are available on the central data base Tender Electronic Daily (TED) whose access is free of charge. The full noti ce of intended procurement is published in its 
original language. In addition, a summary of each no tice of intended procurement is provided in all 
the other official languages of the European Union (23 languages in total). Therefore, the EU regime 
goes further than the obligation laid down in article IX.8 of the GPA. 
As to the language to be used in the conduct of th e procurement process, it is up to the contracting 
authority to decide whether it can accept an off er in another EU language. In that case, this 
information is included in the notice of intended pr ocurement. The EU has no plan to request Member 
States to generalize this practice. 
 
Question 8: Secretariat Report, page 77, paragraph 140  
According to paragraph 140, many European countries such as Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, 
Luxembourg and Hungary have a m onopoly on energy industries including gas and electricity (mostly 
power-grid).   
1) In light of the EC’s request (to other WTO memb ers) for further liberalization of their energy 
services sector in the DDA services negotiations, will the EC  move to liberalize the above 
mentioned sectors in the next few years? 
2) In relation to the above, could the EC provide a dditional information on the current status of the 
liberalization process in electricity and gas sector s? If no particular plans for liberalization are 
not in the pipelines, could the EC provide the reasons for it?  
 
Answer
 
The liberalisation of the EU's electricity and gas markets, which began several years ago, has 
contributed to the rejuvenation of the energy sector . It has helped to develop entrepreneurial potential  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 169 
 
 
 in this sector, with beneficial effects on a variety of energy-related activities ranging from the 
production of diverse forms of renewable energy to the creation of financial markets for energy 
derivatives.However, there are still a number of areas and Member States where the existing legislation has not yet been properly implemented or  where the need for new legislation has become 
apparent (see for further details the recent Comm unication from the Commission to the Council and 
the European Parliament "Report on progress in cr eating the internal gas and electricity market." 
(COM[2009] 115 final of 11.3.2009) To address these issues, the EC is about to adopt a legislative package consisting of two Directives and three Regulations (probable adoption of this le gislation in July or September 2009) the main 
objectives of which are: 
 - more effective regulatory oversight by independent national regulators; 
  establishment of an Agency to ensure  effective cooperation between national 
 regulators and take 
 - decisions on all relevant cross-border issues;  - compulsory cooperation between network op erators to harmonise all rules relating to 
 the transport of 
 - energy across Europe and to coordinate investment planning;  - effective unbundling of the generation and transmission of energy so as to eliminate 
 any conflict of interests, promote network investment and prevent any discriminatory  behaviour; 
 - increased transparency and better functioning of the retail market; 
 - increased solidarity and regional cooperation between Member States to ensure 
 greater security Of supply. 
 The collective request on energy services which has been sent by a number of WTO Members to a set 
of WTO Members, including themselves, and to which the EC is a party, does not includeoperation of 
energy transportation networks (gas transmission and distribution). Therefore, the absence of 
liberalisation of these activities in the EU would not  contradict in any way the EC position in DDA 
negotiations.  
 
Question 9: Secretariat Report, page 77~79 and paragraph 140  
Paragraph 140 and Table III.11 show  the prevalence of public monopolies in EC member states as of 
year 2007.  
Among the member states, in particular for the postal sector, all sectors within the area of postal service are subject to monopoly in Belgium, Ir eland, Italy, Luxembourg and Portugal; France 
monopolizes only the "collection, transport and distri bution of letters and parcels up to 50 grams and 
with a postage not exceeding 2.5 times the base tari ff" and Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, 
Latvia, Netherlands and Slovenia monopolize postal ser vice based on weight criteria—that is, they 
monopolize postal service only for items up to 50 or 100 grams.   However, the above is in conflic t with our understanding of Dir ective 2002/39/EC for postal services. 
According to our understanding, Di rective 2002/39/EC mandates that  the only sector within postal 
services that could legitimately remain as a monopoly as of early 2006 is the "collection, transport and 
distribution of letters and parcels up to 50 grams and with a postage not exceeding 2.5 times the base 
tariff."   
1) In light of the above, could the EC confir m whether Korea’s understanding of Directive 
2002/39/EC is correct? Is there a proviso which pe rmits EC member states from adhering to the 
requirements of Directive 2002/39/EC? 
2) As a related question, is the information in Ta ble III.11 (especially for postal services) accurate? 
If not, could the EC provide the most up-to-date in formation on the status of the postal services 
sector within the EC? 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 170  
 
 Answer
 
1  The assessment made by Korea is exact. There are no provisions to differ from requirements of Directive 2002/39/EC.  2) table III.11 is not accurate. More ampl e and detailed information can be found at 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/post/reports_en.htm
 See notably the 2008 Report from the 
Commission to the Council and the European Parlia ment on the application of the Postal Directive 
(Directive 97/67/EC as amended by Directive 2002/39/EC) and the set of 3 studies on "the Main Developments in the EU postal sector"  by  Wik Consult (*2) and Ecorys Consulting.  
 
Question 10: Secretariat Report, page 87, paragraph 172  
The "complex product" category covers most of the industrial products, including automobiles. 
 
1) In this context, does the EC have any plan s to open its complex products’ component parts 
market to parts produced by specialized parts manufacturers?  
 
In particular, for spare parts for cars, which account for 39 percent of the profits earned by the EC’s auto industry, regulations concerning the protecti on of automakers’ industrial designs need to be 
eased or abolished so that consumers and auto ser vice centers can choose component parts made by 
specialized parts manufacturers.   
2) What is the view of the EC with regards to the above? 
 
Answer
 
The European Commission presented in September 2004 a proposal to amend the Directive on the 
legal protection of designs (COM(2008) 582). The proposal aims at completing the EU internal 
market through the full liberalisation of the spa re parts after market (in particular, but not 
exclusively, car body parts), allowing for more competition and the end consumer more choice and 
lower prices. The proposed "repairs clause" provides  that design protection s hall not extend to spare 
parts used for the purpose of the repair of compl ex products such as motor vehicles. The European 
Parliament endorsed with a clear majority the Commission proposal in December 2007, with a 
transitional period. However, in the Council of the European Union there continues to be a blocking 
minority of Member States opposing the Commission pr oposal for the commercial interests of the car 
manufacturing industry.  
 Question 11: Secretariat Report, page 119, paragraph 75  
According to paragraph 75, the Green paper adopted  by the Commission in March 2006 set up goals 
of having a fully competitive internal market. Yet, the current energy market of the EC is still 
monopolized. Even though the EC has suggested le gislative proposals to tackle this problem, only 
basic market principles are laid out and lacks furt her explanations as to why the EC had not achieve 
its goals and how the EC can deal with it in the future.   
1) What is the EC’s view to the comments above? 
2) Could the EC elaborate on any concrete plans it has formulated for solving the afore-mentioned 
problem? 
 
Answer
 
Please refer to answer number 8. 
 
Question 12: Secretariat Report, page 126, paragraph 87  
Under the UN/ECE Regulation No.117 "Uniform pr ovisions concerning the approval of tyres with 
regard to rolling sound emission and to adh esion on wet surfaces," pursuant to EU Directive 
2001/43/EC, tyres without the rolling sound approval "s " mark cannot be sold or entered into service  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 171 
 
 
 within the EU market as from Oct. 1, 2009. Howe ver, a sharp decrease in vehicle sales and an 
unusually mild winter have resulted in a consider able increase of tyres stock. For these reasons, 
manufacturers, both European and foreign, have requested new implementation schedules or other 
relevant measures, as they will be unable to  sell these tyres before Oct. 1, 2009.  
 
1) In connection to the above, could the EC provide detailed information on the future plans of the 
EC with respect to this issue? 
2) Will the EC proceed with the implementation of  the EU Directive 2001/43/EC as planned?  
 
Answer  
Provisions for rolling noise limits for vehicle tyr es were first set out in Directive 2001/43/EC which 
amended Directive 92/23/EEC on t yre type-approval. The noise limits  applied to new tyre designs 
introduced from August 2003. However, it was rec ognised that manufacturers needed additional time 
to sell tyres of existing designs, therefore an additi onal period of between 6 and 8 years (8-10 years 
from the date of entry into force of the Directive)  depending on the tyre size, was allowed for existing 
non-compliant tyres. We believe that such a peri od was both reasonable and fair, since it allowed 
sufficient time to sell existing tyre stocks, and it ap plied equally to Europe an and non-European tyre 
manufacturers.   Subsequently, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Regulation 117, which 
contained equivalent noise provisions to Direc tive 2001/43/EC, entered into force in 2005.  The 
implementation timetable for this regulation was decided by the UNECE, not by the European 
Commission, although it reflected the deadlines cont ained within the above Directive. Clearly, any 
changes to the deadlines imposed by UNECE Regula tion 117 would need to be agreed through the 
UNECE, specifically through its Working Pa rty 29 and the GRB working group.     
 
Question 13: Secretariat Report, page 127~128, paragraph 90~93  
In the 30th and 31st Adaptations to Technical Pr ogress, the EC classified nickel compounds as 
carcinogenic substances. As this process moves forw ard, it is highly likely that nickel compounds will 
be considered "candidate substances" according to REACH.  
1) In regards to the above, what is the scientific basis for classifying nickel compounds as candidate 
substances? 
 
REACH requires reporting of the presence of more th an 0.1 percent by weight of any Substance of 
Very High Concern for all finished products (e.g., automobiles, electronics and parts, clothing and bags). Some suggest that ‘alternatively’ the re quirements should be homogeneous, and should not be 
based on the weight of the products in question.  
 
2) What is the EC’s view to this "alternative" view? 
3) What does the EC foresee as possible problems associ ated with the adoption of this homogeneity 
rule (ie., Cost? Time? Methodology?)? Please elaborate. 
 
Answer
 
1) The process for inclusion of a substance in the candidate list allows for comments from all 
interested parties, including those from third countri es.  Specific information about the possibility for 
commenting can be found on a website of the Eur opean Chemicals Agency (ECHA) devoted to public 
consultations (http://echa.europa. eu/consultations/authorisation_en .asp ).  Nickel compounds have 
not yet been considered for inclusion in the candidate list. 
 
2-3) The guidance on substances in articles explains  how to apply the 0.1% rule.  Specifically, the 
guidance does not support the alternative view that the Korean delegation is referring to.   
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 172  
 
 The Commission supports the interpretation that is se t out in the guidance.  However, it is noted that 
only the ECJ has the competence to make an authoritative interpretation of EC law. 
 Question 14: Secretariat Report, page 145, paragraph 143  
1) Do independent national regulators (as indicated in  Paragraph 143) aim to regulate just the postal 
service suppliers?  Or will it oversee both " postal and courier services (express delivery 
services)"? 
2) (If the answer to the question above is "postal service suppliers") Once the reserved area of the 
postal service is eliminated in 2012, postal ser vice suppliers and courier service suppliers will 
enter a state of "competition." How then will courie r service suppliers in EC member states be 
regulated?  
 
Answer
 
National postal regulators oversee the whole sector. Th is is consistent throughout the whole EU postal 
reform as enshrined in the three directives. It shoul d be noted that there is a clear distinction made 
between universal postal service and other services like express. See article 18 of Directive 97/67/EC, 
and paragraph 1&3 of article 9, Directive 2008/6/EC.  Question 15: Secretariat Report , page 145, paragraph 143~144  
Paragraph 143-144 indicates that "the EC framework for postal services, as set out by the Postal 
Directive, requires member states to continue to en sure universal services for all customers, including 
collection and delivery of mail at least five days  per week at affordable prices throughout the 
territory," and that it would achieve "a progressive  opening of the market by gradually reducing the 
scope of the reserved area."   If the reserved area is eliminated after 2012, the ma rket will enter a state of competition. Then who 
will bear the costs of universal services?  
 
Answer
 
Article 4 ,7 & 9 of the new Directive provid e for accompanying measures to safeguard universal 
service, with an important controlling and monitori ng role given to national regulatory authorities 
(article 21) while taking care at the same time of  avoiding any disproportionate distortions to the 
functioning of the market.  
The financing alternatives in the new Article 7 include public compensation through direct state 
subsidies or, indirectly, financing through th e use of public procurement procedures.  
In the event that any residual net cost for the pr ovision of universal service ne eds to be compensated 
for, annex I of the Directive provides for guidan ce on how to calculate this net cost, if any 
 
COLOMBIA  
 
I. EL ENTORNO ECONÓMICO 
 
Pregunta 1 
Según los párrafos 3 y 4 (páginas 2 y 3), Los criterios  de convergencia de Maastricht para la adopción 
del euro son los siguientes: estabilidad de los precios ;  situación fiscal sostenible;  estabilidad de los 
tipos de cambio;  y bajos tipos de interés.  Adem ás, el Tratado requiere la convergencia jurídica, a 
saber, la compatibilidad de la legislación nacional, esp ecialmente los estatutos de los bancos centrales.   
 
Los Estados miembros de las CE que no forman pa rte de la zona del euro se benefician de una 
excepción y se espera que adopten el euro una vez que cumplan los criterios de convergencia de 
Maastricht.  ¿Aparte de los criterios de convergencia menciona dos anteriormente, existen otros adicionales?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 173 
 
 
 Respuesta  
The four convergence criteria are developed further in a Protocol annexed to the Treaty (Protocol 
No. 21 on the convergence criteria).  The price stability criterion is defined in the first indent of Article 121(1) of the Treaty: "the 
achievement of a high degree of price stability […] w ill be apparent from a rate of inflation whic 
h is close to that of, at most, the three best p erforming Member States in terms of price stability". 
 Article 1 of the Protocol on the convergence criteri a further stipulates that "the criterion on price 
stability […] shall mean that a Member State has a price performance that is sustainable and an 
average rate of inflation, observed over a period of one year before the examination, that does not 
exceed by more than 1.5 percentage points that of, at most, the three best performing Member States 
in terms of price stability. Inflation shall be meas ured by means of the consumer price index on a 
comparable basis, taking into account differences  in national definitions". The requirement of 
sustainability implies that the satisfactory inflation pe rformance must essentially be attributable to the 
behaviour of input costs and other factors influen cing price developments in a structural manner, 
rather than the influence of temporary factors. Th erefore, the convergence  examination includes an 
assessment of the factors underlying inflation and of  medium-term prospects. It also assesses whether 
the country is likely to meet the reference value in the months ahead. 
 The Treaty refers to the exchange rate criterion in the third indent of Ar ticle 121 as "the observance 
of the normal fluctuation margins provided for by the exchange-rate mechanism of the European 
Monetary System, for at least two years, without d evaluing against the currency of any other Member 
State". Article 3 of the Protocol on the convergen ce criteria stipulates: "The criterion on participation 
in the exchange rate mechanism of the European Monetary System (…) shall mean that a Member 
State has respected the normal fluctuation margins provided for by the exchange-rate mechanism of 
the European Monetary System without severe tensi ons for at least the last two years before the 
examination. In particular, the Member State shall not have devalued its cur rency’s bilateral central 
rate against any other Member State’s currency on its own initiative for the same period".  
 The convergence criterion dealing with the government budgetary position is defined in the second 
indent of Article 121(1) of the Treaty as "the su stainability of the government financial position: this 
will be apparent from having achieved a governme nt budgetary position without a deficit that is 
excessive as determined in accordance with Article 104(6)". Furthermore, Article 2 of the Protocol on 
the convergence criteria states that this criterion means that "at the time of the examination the 
Member State is not the subject of a Council deci sion under Article 104(6) of this Treaty that an 
excessive deficit exists". 
 
The fourth indent of Article 121(1) of the Treaty  requires "the durability of convergence achieved by 
the Member State and of its participation in the exchange rate mechanism of the European Monetary 
System being reflected in the long-term interest rate levels ". Article 4 of the Protocol on the 
convergence criteria further stipulates that "the criterion on the convergence of interest rates (…) 
shall mean that, observed over a period of one year before the examination, a Member State has had 
an average nominal long-term interest rate that does not exceed by more than 2 percentage points 
that of, at most, the three best-performing Member States in terms of price stability. Interest rates 
shall be measured on the basis of long term gov ernment bonds or comparable securities, taking into 
account differences in national definitions".  
The examination of the compatibility of national legislation , including the statutes of the national 
central banks, with Articles 108 and 109 of the Treaty and the ESCB Statute requires notably an assessment of compliance with the prohibition of monetary financing (Article 101 EC) and the 
prohibition of privileged access (Article 102 EC ); consistency with the ESCB's objectives WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 174  
 
 (Article 105(1) EC); central bank independence (A rticle 108 EC); and integration of national central 
banks into the ESCB (several EC Treaty and ESCB Statute articles).  Last, Article 121 of the Treaty also requires an exa mination of other factors relevant to economic 
integration and convergence. These additional fa ctors include financial and product market 
integration, the development of the balance of payments on current account and the development of 
unit labour costs and other price indices. 
 
¿Cuando un Estado Miembro no cumple  con alguno de los criterios establecidos que sanciones le 
merece?, y si reincide por uno o m ás años seguidos, ¿qué le ocurre? 
 Respuesta
 
The criteria are made for judging whether a country can join or not the euro area.  
 Member States are expected to make e fforts towards their respect, but a re not legally obliged to meet 
them. Such an obligation would have little sense cons idering that some of the conditions set by the 
Treaty (e.g., on long term interest rates) are not fully in the hands of the Governments.  
 There are therefore no sanctions a ttached to their non fulfilment. 
 
III. POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
 
Pregunta 2 
El párrafo 8 (página 43), enuncia que el Código Ad uanero modernizado entró en vigor el 24 de junio 
de 2008. No obstante, dicho código sólo se aplicar á cuando se hayan adoptado sus disposiciones de 
aplicación a más tardar en el 2013. ¿Podría la UE informarnos si todas las aduanas de los países 
miembros ya cuentan con procedimientos automati zados de intercambio de información electrónica?  
 
Respuesta
 
Currently, the following inter-operable IT systems co ncerning customs procedures are operational in 
the Member States:1) The Computerised Transit System (NCTS) covering customs transit operations and 2) The Export Control System (ECS) covering export operations 
 
Pregunta 3 
En el mismo párrafo 8 (página 43), se menciona que  el nuevo código aduanero agiliza y simplifica los 
procedimientos aduaneros; y trata de conseguir el equilibrio entre la "seguridad de la cadena de 
suministros". ¿Podría la UE ampliarnos la información en lo referente a la seguridad en la cadena de 
suministro? ¿Qué medidas o estrategias se están a doptando para mantener la seguridad en la cadena 
de suministro?  
Respuesta
 
The EU Modernised Customs Code and its Implementi ng Provisions will fully incorporate the security 
amendments to the current EU Customs Code of  2005 and 2006 which are based on the WCO SAFE 
Framework. Specifically the EU-wide risk manage ment framework will be fully integrated 
establishing common risk rules, including rules that  address security concerns, in all Member States. 
The EU Authorised Economic Operator (AEO) progra m is subject to revision in the context of the 
MCC Implementing Provisions and new benefits for AEOs will be provided in recognition of meeting 
strict security standards. Fu rthermore, requirements to provide security summary pre-
arrival/departure declarations will further enhan ce EU Customs Administrations to undertake 
security risk analysis at an early stage and deploy res ource more effectively to areas of highest risk. 
The EC believes that these measures will provid e enhanced international supply chain security 
between the EU and its trading partners.  
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 175 
 
 
 Pregunta 4 
El párrafo 11 (página 44), hace mención al sistema de la Información arancelaria vinculante (IAV). 
¿Podría la UE explicar las diferencias, si las hay, con el sistema de expedición de resoluciones 
anticipadas en materia de clasifi cación arancelaria según los está ndares y recomendaciones de la 
OMA?   Respuesta
 
The EBTI system of advance rulings in operati on in the EC complies fully with all the 
recommendations annexed to the "Recommendation of  the CCC on the Introduction of programmes 
for Binding Pre-Entry Classification Information" of 18 June 1996.   
 
Pregunta 5 
Sobre los párrafos 36 a 38 (páginas 58 y 59), Normas de  Origen, ¿En qué consisten las regla de origen 
no preferenciales, en qué circunstancias son aplícales y dónde está la normativa relacionada? 
 Respuesta
 
The EC's non preferential rules of origin are applied for the purposes listed in Article 1 paragraph 2 
of the WTO Agreement on Rules of Origin (MFN treatment, anti-dumping and countervailing duties, 
safeguard measures, origin marking, quantitati ve restrictions and tariff quota's, government 
procurement and trade statistics). They are laid down in Regulation (EEC) no. 2913/92 of 12-10-1992 
establishing the Community Customs Code, in parti cular in Article 24 thereof and in Regulation 
(EEC) no. 2454/93 laying down its implementing provisions. 
 Pregunta 6 
Sobre los párrafos 36 a 38 (páginas 58 y 59), No rmas de Origen, ¿La modificación que la Unión 
Europea está adelantando de sus reglamentos de orig en se hará extensivo a los acuerdos comerciales 
en vigencia? 
 
Respuesta
 
The decision on the details of extension of the new GSP rules of origin to other arrangements and the necessary procedures thereof will be  taken after the rules are adopt ed and tested within the GSP 
scheme. 
 
Pregunta 7 
En el literal a) Medidas Antidumping párrafo 54 ( página 63), la UE cita que "Cuando se produce un 
cambio provisional en las condiciones del mercado que hace inapropiado temporalmente seguir aplicando las medidas antidumping, éstas pueden su spenderse por un período máximo de un año y 
volver a imponerse de ser necesario" 
 ¿ Qué procedimiento aplica la UE para determin ar el cambio provisional en las condiciones del 
mercado?¿La determinación de suspensión de la aplicación de las medidas antidumping, se adopta de 
oficio o a petición de parte?¿ Cómo y bajo que pr ocedimiento determina la UE la necesidad de volver 
a imponer las medidas antidumping?.   Respuesta
 
The European Commission may suspend anti-dumping me asures where it is clear that the injury to 
the Community has temporarily stopped. The co nditions to suspend anti-dumping measures are 
spelled out in Article 14 (4 ) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995. 
 
It is the European Commission which suspends and  reinstates anti-dumping measures on its own 
initiative for a period of nine months. Parties do not have an actionable right to require the European 
Commission to start suspension proced ure. An extension of the suspension of up to 12 months must be WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 176  
 
 decided by the European Council upon proposal of the European Commission. Measures may be 
reinstated at any time if the reason for suspension is no longer applicable.  Pregunta 8 
En el literal c) Salvaguardias, pá rrafo 60 ( página 65), la UE señala: " Cuando se considere necesario 
para impedir que se cause daño a los productores de la CE, las importaciones pueden estar sujetas a 
vigilancia comunitaria retrospectiva o previa por un período limitado". En la nota de pie de página 
No. 82, señala que la vigilancia se realiza mediante un sistema de licencias de importación.   ¿ En que etapa del procedimiento de salvaguardia  la UE determina la necesidad de someter a 
vigilancia comunitaria retrospectiva o previa l as importaciones?. ¿Estas medidas de vigilancia se 
aplican erga omnes a todos los productos? ¿Cúal es el  tiempo determinado para la aplicación de estas 
medidas de vigilancia?  
Respuesta
 
1 Introducing surveillance and safeguard measures  are two different proceedings. Surveillance 
has no impact whatsoever on import flows as its only purpose is to collect rapid information on trade 
flows.  2 Concerning the application of surveillance meas ures, please refer to Article 11 of Council 
Regulation (EC) No 3258/94 (OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p 53). Surveill ance measures can be introduced 
"where the trend in imports of a
 product originating in a  third country threatens to cause injury to the 
Community producers [..]". Surveillance measures th erefore apply to a specific product from one or 
more specific country(ies).  3 Concerning the duration of the surveillance meas ures, please refer to Article 11 (3) of the 
above mentioned Council Regulation and to the de tails as set out in footnote 82 in the WTO 
Secretariat's report.  Pregunta 9 
Según el párrafo 66 (página 67) del documento WT/TPR/S/214, los Estados miembros no pueden 
restringir la comercialización de productos con la ma rca "CE" a menos que existan pruebas de falta de 
conformidad del producto. Sin embargo, más adelan te agrega que "Mediante un procedimiento basado 
en una cláusula de salvaguardia, la Comisión puede verificar las medidas adoptadas por las 
autoridades nacionales que restringen la circulaci ón de las mercancías que llevan la marca "CE".  
 ¿En qué consiste la verificación que la Comisión puede realizar sobre las medidas adoptadas por las 
autoridades nacionales que restringen la circulaci ón de las mercancías que llevan la marca "CE"? 
 Puesto que la verificación no es obligatoria, ¿significa  que un estado puede restringir la circulación de 
las mercancías que llevan la marca "CE", sin que ello le genere consecuencias?  
Respuesta
 
Whereas the safeguard procedure is approximately th e same for all Directives, some of these can 
present some specificity. Therefore it  is worth referring to a specific Directive in order to obtain the 
exact procedure in place.  In case of a measure against a non compliant produc t in the framework of the safeguard procedure, a 
Member State transmits to the Commission the relevant information including all available details, in 
particular the data necessary for the identification of the noncompliant product, the origin of the 
product, the nature of the noncompliance alleged and the risk involved, the nature and duration of the national measures taken and the arguments put forward by the relevant economic operator. 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 177 
 
 
 a) The Commission analyses the information put at disposal by the Member State and, if 
  necessary, gathers additional information (e.g. through contacts with the economic   operator concerned and/or other Memb er states). If the Commission considers a  
  national measure to be contrary to Community  legislation, it shall without delay enter 
  into consultation with the Member States and the relevant economic operator or    operators and shall evaluate the national meas ure(e.g. in terms of justification and/or 
  proportionality of the measure taken). On the basis of the results of that evaluation, 
  the Commission shall decide whether th e national measure is justified or not. 
 
b) All those measures taken in the framew ork of the safeguard procedures which are 
  only
 notified to the Commission (and not to Member States) entail automatically an 
  evaluation . However, those Directives (e.g. on Low Voltage Products), which foresee 
  that the relevant measures need to be notified both to the Commission and the  
  Member States, do not entail an automa tic evaluation. The evaluation takes place 
  either when the Commission believes from a first screening that some doubts can be 
  raised on the measure adopted, either when  this measure is contested by another  
  Member State.  
Only when neither the Commission nor either any Member State react to a notified measure, no 
evaluation takes place. However, in this case, the measure is considered legitimate by all 
counterparts and therefore there is no need for further evaluation. 
 Both the above approaches make sure that the eva luation of adopted measures is made at an 
appropriate level and that no Member State can ar bitrarily restrict trade without incurring in 
countermeasures from the Commission.   
 
Pregunta 10 
En el párrafo 70 (página 68) del documento mencionado, se informa que "…Los operadores 
económicos, en particular las PYME, encuentran ob stáculos a la libre circulación de mercancías en 
las CE debido a los reglamentos técnicos impuestos  por Estados miembros, co mo los relativos a la 
forma, el tamaño, el peso, el etiquetado y el envase de los productos…"  
¿Tienen previsto las Comunidades Europeas adoptar medidas contra estos reglamentos técnicos que 
se constituyen en obstáculos técnicos al comerc io por parte de Estados miembros? ¿El marco 
reforzado de reconocimiento mutuo,  que entrará a regir el 13 de ma yo de 2009, mencionado en el 
numeral 71 y que busca mejorar la circulación interna de mercancías en esferas no armonizadas, tiene 
en cuenta esa situación? 
 
Respuesta
 
Measures to ensure the free movement of goods with in the EC internal market  have been taken since 
1980.   
One of the important prerequisites for an optimally  functioning internal market for goods is the 
elimination of technical barriers to trade. There are, in the field of goods, two main types of 
instruments for achieving this, namely: 
 The approximation of national legisla tion ("harmonisation of laws") whereby 
technical barriers are eliminated by the harmonisation of national technical rules 
through secondary EC legislation (direc tives, regulations and decisions) under 
Article 95 of the EC Treaty. 
 Mutual recognition of products lawfully marketed in another Member State under 
Articles 28 and 30 of the EC Treaty in the non-harmonised area. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 178  
 
 Another instrument which aims to avoi d future trade barriers is Directive 98/34/EC
29. This directive 
sets up a procedure which imposes an obligation upon the Member Stat es to notify to the Commission 
and to the other Member States all the draft t echnical regulations concerning products and 
Information Society Services before  they are adopted in national law. Such procedure aims at 
providing EC-wide transparency and control with regard to those regulations. 
 
Moreover Regulation No 764/200830 (hereinafter, the "Mutual Recognition Regulation" or "the 
Regulation") will reinforce the elimination of existi ng technical rules which could deny the access of a 
product to a national market. The Regulation applies after the adoption of a technical rule by the 
national authority and aims to ensure that following the adoption of a technical rule, the principle of 
mutual recognition is correctly applied in individual  cases to specific products. In particular, thanks 
to the Regulation, the application of the mutual  recognition principle will be further enhanced. In 
other words, a Member State cannot deny the access to its territory to a product lawfully placed on 
the market of another Member State merely on th e ground of technical differences between the 
various national rules. If the Member State of destination intends to adopt a decision which could 
deny the access to its market to a product lawfully  placed on the market of another Member State, its 
national authority has to follow the procedural re quirement established in Articles 4 to 6 of the 
Regulation. Specifically, the Member State of destination has to duly justify such decision setting out 
supporting technical or scientific evidence.   Pregunta 11 
En el párrafo 72 (página 69) del citado documento  se informa que varios miembros han planteado 
preocupaciones en el Comité OTC en relación con re glamentos técnicos mantenidos o propuestos por 
las CE o sus Estados miembros, que crean o podrían crear obstáculos innecesarios al comercio de sustancias y preparados químicos, productos vitiviníc olas, juguetes, productos derivados de las focas, 
productos ecológicos, productos que utilizan energía,  encendedores, aparatos eléctricos y electrónicos, 
y cables eléctricos.¿Se han adoptado medidas al respecto? 
 
Respuesta
 
With respect to the concerns rai sed by other WTO Members in the TBT Committee with regard to EC 
draft measures, the EC is committed to respecti ng its obligations under the TBT Agreement. These 
include, for example, transparency obligations (e.g. publishing a notice at an early appropriate stage, 
notifying the draft measures to the WTO, providin g the WTO Secretariat with copies of these draft 
measures, and allowing reasonable time for comment s). Furthermore, the EC  has always been open 
to consider other WTO Members' comments, pr ovided both written and oral responses to these 
comments and took them into account when finally  adopting the measures in question, in the cases 
where this would not risk the non-fulfilment of the legitimate objectives pursued. It is also worth 
noting that the legislative process in the EC  is among the most transparent among WTO Members: 
any legislative proposal is preceded by an extensive stakeholder consultation, which is open to third 
countries' stakeholders and governments, and also  based on an extensive impact assessment 
evaluating the economic, environmental and social consequences of the available policy options, 
including their compatibility with the internatio nal trade obligations of the EC. In addition, 
substantive amendments to the original Europe an Commission's legislative proposal introduced by 
the EU Council or the European Parliament are al so subject to an impact assessment. The outcome, 
                                                      
 29 Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical 
standards and regulations and of rules of Information Society Services , OJ L 24, 21.7.1998, p. 37,as last 
amended by Council Directive 2006/96/EC of 20 November 2006. 
 30 Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 laying 
down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in 
another Member State and repealing Decision No 3052/95/EC, JO L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 21. 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 179 
 
 
 in the EC's view, is that the finally adopted text  is not more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil 
the legitimate objectives being pursued, and theref ore does not create unnecessary obstacles to trade.  
 Pregunta 12 
En el párrafo 74 (página 71), se menciona entre las principales preocupaciones comerciales planteadas 
en el Comité OTC, sobre el REACH los procedimient os gravosos, en particular para las PYME y los 
países en desarrollo. Posteriormente, en el numeral  75 se informa que se prevén reducciones de hasta 
un 90 por ciento en las tasas pagaderas por las PYME respecto del REACH. ¿Está prevista una reducción para los países en desarrollo? ¿De qué porcentaje?  Respuesta
 
The treatment of SMEs was a key concern during th e legislative process of the "REACHRegulation.  
In this regard, the amount of information that is required in the context of registration is lower for lower tonnage ranges.  Additionally, very signific ant reductions for Medium, Small and Micro 
Enterprises, up to 90%, have been foreseen by the Regulation on fees. 
While manufacturers that are established outside the EU are not required to register, the reductions 
for SMEs apply equally to importers and "only representatives".  Pregunta 13 
En el párrafo 84 (páginas 73 y 74), se dice que "El 1º de septiembre de 2008 entró en vigor un nuevo 
sistema de límites máximos de residuos de plaguici das (LMR) en alimentos, que consolida las listas 
nacionales divergentes de LMR y armoniza los LM R a nivel comunitario con objeto, entre otras 
cosas, de eliminar los obstáculos técn icos al comercio inapropiados.   
 Cuando finalice el proceso de armonización, se si mplificará todo el sistema y se sustituirán 500.000 
LMR nacionales por 75.000 LMR comunitarios arm onizados.  El nuevo Reglamento sobre los LMR 
abarca todos los productos agrícolas, incluidos los productos de origen animal y los productos 
elaborados, destinados al consum o humano o a la alimentación animal.   Se especifican LMR para 
unos 500 plaguicidas;  a los (otros) plaguicidas no especificados se les aplica por defecto un LMR de 
0,01 mg/kg .   La Autoridad Europea de Seguridad  Alimentaria (AESA) evalúa cada nuevo LMR 
propuesto y, sobre la base de su opinión, la Comi sión puede emitir un reglamento para establecer un 
nuevo LMR o modificar o suprimir uno existente.  Los Estados miembros aplican el reglamento  
mediante programas de control nacionales y la Oficina Alimentaria y Veterinaria de la Comisión se 
encarga de realizar inspecciones.     Colombia solicita a las CE basarse en los análisis de riesgo y en la información técnica y científica 
correspondientes, para la determinación de los re spectivos LMR que se aplican por defecto a los 
plaguicidas no especificados o que no estén abarcados por los organismos internacionales de 
referencia. Lo anterior, con el fin de que los LM R de 0.01 mg/kg. que actualmente se aplican por 
defecto a dichos plaguicidas no se constituyan en  una barrera injustificada al comercio.  
 
Respuesta
 
The harmonisation has represented a big advance in terms of trade because it has clarified and 
simplified the MRL situation at EU level. Therefore,  there are not "national MRLs" any longer. For 
all those substances non-specified, the EC does not  have enough information, especially concerning 
the toxicological endpoints and residue trials. Therefore,  the EC is not able to set any MRLs different 
from the limit of determination (LOD) in order to  avoid any risk for potential European consumers. 
The EC will set MRLs for third countries (as im port tolerances) if it is requested by them in 
accordance with the articles 6 and 7 to Regulation 396/2005.  
 Pregunta 14 
En el párrafo 92 (página 77), La autorización y el  uso de los nuevos alimentos e ingredientes 
alimentarios (Novel Food) se armonizaron en el Re glamento (CE) Nº 258/97, adoptado en 1997. Las WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 180  
 
 CE están revisando su legislación sobre nuevos a limentos para, entre otras cosas, establecer un 
procedimiento centralizado de evaluación (por la AESA) y autorización (por la Comisión).   Para los "alimentos tradicionales" de terceros países, que se consideran nuevos alimentos con arreglo al actual 
Reglamento, se introducirán una evaluación y gestión de la seguridad basadas en un historial de uso 
alimentario seguro en el pa ís de origen.  Varios Mi embros han planteado preocupaciones en el Comité 
MSF con respecto a la definición y el reconocimiento de los "alimentos tradicionales" de terceros 
países en el reglamento propuesto.   En particular , los países en desarrollo se han quejado de que el 
reglamento propuesto obstaculizaría de manera in justificada el comercio, porque impondría a los 
proveedores la carga de demostrar que los productos o extractos tradicionales o étnicos son inocuos y 
exigiría un historial demostrado de consumo inocuo  en una zona amplia, cuando los productos se 
podrían haber consumido en pequeñas localidades. 
 Colombia reitera a las CE la solicitud tener en cuen ta la propuesta de modificación del artículo 8 del 
Reglamento sobre Nuevos Alimentos CE No. 25 8/97, presentada por la Comunidad Andina al 
Parlamento Europeo en marzo de 2009, para efectos de la determinación los "a limentos tradicionales" 
de terceros países, que se consideren nuevos alimentos.  
 
Respuesta
 
The EC is working on the proposal for Novel Foods with the European Parliament. The new proposal 
which is currently under consideration will take into a ccount of historical records on safe food use in 
the country of origin and other provisions to facilita te the approval of such novel foods. If the history 
of safe food use in the country of origin has been  demonstrated, the food could be placed on the 
market on basis of a notification of the food busin ess operator intending to market the food.   
 
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES 
 
Pregunta 15 
En materia de servicios, más específicamente servi cios financieros,  párrafos 115 a 119 (páginas 161 a 
163), tanto el informe de la Secretaría como el de las CE, son amplios en la descripción de la 
regulación comunitaria y su evolución desde el último  examen. No obstante, no incluyen información 
alguna sobre el régimen de comercio, en los diferent es modos, entre las CE y terceros países. En otras 
palabras, no es posible saber que ta n abierto o cerrado está el mercado de servicios de las CE para 
terceros países. Siendo así, ¿sería posible tener una  descripción general del régimen de comercio de 
servicios, especialmente financieros en los diferentes modos, entre l as CE y terceros países con los 
que no se tenga un acuerdo bilateral?  
Respuesta
 
With regard to Modes 1, 2 and 4, there is no EU-wide legislation, so that each Member State can set 
its own national regulation in this respect. The spec ific measures taken by each Member States are set 
out in the EC’s GATS schedule.  With regard to Mode 3, the cond itions of establishment are set at EC-level, so the requirements that 
have to be fulfilled by financial services suppliers at ea ch sector (banking and insurance) are set by 
EC legislation. Once a supplier has established a subsidiary in any one of the 27 Member States, it is 
then free to supply services in  all the remaining 26 MS. 
The relevant legislative provisions are:  
• Directive 2006/48/EC  of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 
relating to the taking up and pursuit of th e business of credit institutions (recast); and  
• Directive 2006/49/EC  of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2006 on 
the capital adequacy of investment firms and credit institutions (recast)  
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 181 
 
 
 And for insurance: 
 
• Directive 2002/83/EC  
Life assurance (recast version)  
• Directive 73/239/EEC  
First Council Directive – Taking-up and pursuit of the business  
• Directive 73/240/EEC  
Abolition of restrictions on freedom of establishment  
 AGRICULTURA  Pregunta 16 
A comienzos del año 2009, la Unión Europea decidió reintroducir los subsidios a las exportaciones de 
productos lácteos (mantequilla, quesos, leche entera y leche en polvo) que había eliminado en junio de 
2007. La argumentación oficial es simple: los subsid ios a las exportaciones de leche y sus derivados 
son necesarios ante la abrupta caída de los precios  internacionales. Los subsidios a las exportaciones 
de productos lácteos van a compensar, según las CE , la diferencia entre los precios piso o de 
intervención y los precios internacionales. Mariann Fi sher Boel, comisario de Agricultura de la Unión 
Europea, manifestó, en efecto, a finales de enero de 2009 que "con los precios mundiales por debajo 
de los precios de intervención, nuestros expor tadores no pueden competir más". ¿Cuál es el 
presupuesto de las CE asignado para subsidiar l as exportaciones de productos lácteos? Cuál es la 
duración de estos subsidios? A qué productos se dirige? ¿Quiere esto decir que sin subsidios las CE no son competitivas en el sector lácteos? Al examin ar los compromisos históricos de las CE en 
materia de subsidios a las exportaciones, se verifi ca que estos crecen, es decir, que en lugar de 
reducirse o mantenerse estáticos, estos aumentan. ¿Cómo las CE calculan estos compromisos en su 
lista de concesiones?  
 
Respuesta
 
The EC introduced export subsidies for certain dairy products in the beginning of 2009 as a 
temporary measure in an extremely difficult situat ion. There is no predeterm ined duration for the 
application of export subsidies. The products eligib le for subsidies are condensed milk and cream, 
butter and buttermilk and cheese. A complete list of eligible products can be found in Commission 
Regulation (EC) No 57/2009. The EC budgetary and quantitative commitments for all dairy products 
are EUR 2.313,6 billion and 2.075,6 million tonnes re spectively. The EC has always and will continue 
to respect its international obligations. The latest not ifications of export subsidies by the EC indicate 
a continuous decline in the use of export subsid ies. The EC notification on export subsidies for 
2007/2008 can be expected during 2009.  Pregunta 17 
La Unión Europea anunció a comienzos del 2009 que "esta decisión no afecta de manera alguna el compromiso de eliminación de los subsidios como parte de la Ronda Doha". ¿Pese a lo anterior, se 
mantiene el compromiso de eliminación de los su bsidios a las exportaciones previsto para el año 
2013? ¿Las CE consideran que hay congruencia entre un compromiso  multilateral de eliminación de 
subsidios a las exportaciones y su reintroducción? ¿L as CE consideran que la decisión de reintroducir 
los subsidios a la exportación en esta coyuntura, e nvía o no una negativa señal en un momento en que 
lo importante es resistir a las presiones proteccionist as derivadas de la crisis  económica y financiera 
global?  
 
Respuesta
 
The EC stands by its commitments to phase-out export subsidies by 2013 on condition of a successful 
completion of the DDA in which our trading par tners have also disciplined their export support 
programmes. The EC introduced export subsidies for certain dairy products in the beginning of 2009 
as a temporary safety net measure in an exceptional  situation. In using export subsidies we respect WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 182  
 
 our scheduled commitments under the WTO and theref ore, these measures are not WTO inconsistent 
measures.  
 
COLOMBIA II
 
 
II. PRINCIPALES ACONTECIMIENTOS REGISTRADOS EN LAS CE 1) Evolución institucional 
 
8 En marzo de 2007, tras un período de reflexión y consultas, los dirigentes de la UE se comprometieron a volver a poner en marcha el pro ceso de reforma institucional interna, que había 
quedado en suspenso debido a los reveses del pro ceso de ratificación del proyecto de Constitución 
Europea de 2004.  Ello preparó el terreno para el acuerdo sobre el Tratado de  Lisboa, firmado por los 
Estados miembros de la UE el 13 de diciembre de 2007. 
 9. Ese nuevo Tratado dará lugar a una serie de mejo ras que afectan también a la esfera de la política 
comercial, entre ellas las siguientes: optimización de lo s métodos de trabajo; aumento de la eficiencia de 
los procesos de adopción de decisiones; e intensifi cación de la democracia mediante la asignación de un 
papel más importante al Parlamento Europeo y a lo s parlamentos nacionales y la consecución de una 
mayor coherencia de las actividades exteriores de la UE.  Más concretamente, en algunos aspectos de la 
política comercial, el Tratado de Lisboa confiere al  Parlamento Europeo el mismo grado de facultades 
legislativas que tiene el Consejo de Ministros de la UE, y exige la aprobación del Parlamento Europeo de 
todos los acuerdos internacionales conexos.  Amplía el ámbito de aplicación de la política comercial 
común para incluir la inversión extranjera directa y simplifica la prestación de protección uniforme de los 
derechos de propiedad intelectual en toda la Unió n.  Además, fortalece la posición de la UE, en su 
condición de actor mundial, de dos modos concretos: en  primer lugar, mediante el reconocimiento de una 
personalidad jurídica única a la Unión, que le permit irá concluir acuerdos internacionales y adherirse a 
organizaciones internacionales;  y, en segundo lugar, mediante una mayor integración de las diferentes 
líneas de la política exterior.  Para que entre en vigor, el Tratado de Lisboa ha de ser ratificado por los 27 
Estados miembros.  A finales de 2008 lo habían ap robado ya los parlamentos de 25 Estados miembros. 
 
Pregunta 18 
Una vez entre en vigor la Reforma al Tratado de Lis boa, ¿Qué competencias asumirán las CE en materia 
de negociación, aprobación y aplicación de Acuerdos  Internacionales de Inversión? ¿Cómo se verán 
afectados Tratados Bilaterales de Inversión en negociación o previament e suscritos entre países de las CE 
y países no pertenecientes a las CE?  
Respuesta
 
The Treaty of Lisbon would grant the EC the co mpetence for foreign direct investment.  The manner 
in which any such competence affect s BITs will need to be worked out in detail with Member states, if 
the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified.  Pregunta 19 
La jurisprudencia de la Corte Europea de Justicia se  ha pronunciado sobre las salvaguardias en materia de 
movimiento de capitales en caso de desequilibrios  a la balanza de pagos.  ¿Considerando estos 
pronunciamientos y otros relevantes para los temas de inversión y establecimiento, qué modificaciones 
deberán hacer los países de la Unión Europea a sus acuerdos bilaterales de i nversión vigentes, incluso 
antes de la entrada en vigencia de la Reforma al Tratado de Lisboa? 
 
Respuesta
 
The ECJ in its recent judgements as of 3/03/09 found that several Member States, by not having taken the appropriate measures to remove the inco mpatibilities resulting from the transfer clauses 
contained in their bilateral investment treaties, ha ve violated their EU Membership obligations. Some 
restrictive measures on capital movement and payments as  provided for by the EC Treaty must enter  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 183 
 
 
 into force immediately after adoption by the Council in order to be effecti ve. Since several bilateral 
investment treaties do not foresee the application of such measures they have been considered to be 
incompatible with the EC Treaty.  The Commission is examining initiatives it can take in  order to facilitate a common approach and mutual 
assistance between Member States in this respect  
 
SERVICIOS 
 
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES 
5) SERVICIOS 
i) Panorama general 
 
108. Los servicios son el principal sector económico de las CE:  representan el 69,5 por ciento del 
valor añadido bruto, el 68,9 por ciento del empleo y el 96 por ciento de los nuevos puestos de trabajo creados en 2007.
31  El tamaño del sector varía considerablemente entre los distintos Estados miembros y 
hay en las CE una considerable dispersión de niveles de precios de los servicios.32  Además, el sector 
constituye la cuestión prioritaria en lo que se refi ere a la ultimación del mercado único, ya que sólo 
representa el 20 por ciento del comercio intracomunitari o, más de la mitad del cual corresponde al turismo 
y los transportes.33  El bajo nivel del comercio intracomunitario de servicios se debe en parte a los 
obstáculos subsistentes, como los monopolios, qu e impiden el establecimiento de proveedores de 
servicios de otros Estados miembros (por ejemplo,  servicios postales o servicios públicos relacionados 
con la energía), y las diferencias de reglamentación entre los Estados miembros.34 
 148. El hecho de que cerca del 90 por ciento de l as PYME existentes en las CE opere en sectores de 
servicios hace que la situación sea más problemá tica, dado que normalmente esas empresas no pueden 
permitirse los costos adicionales de realizar actividades transfronterizas. 
 
De acuerdo con el píe de No 148 las PYME "no pueden  permitirse los costos adicionales de realizar 
actividades transfronterizas". 
 
Pregunta 20 
Cuáles son los costos de realizar actividades transfronterizas? En que consisten? 
 
Respuesta
 
Businesses wanting to set up in another Member State face difficulties and costs just to find out what the 
legal and administrative formalities are. For example , an engineering company had to spend 3% of its 
annual turnover on research into the differing legal re quirements in just two other Member States where 
it wanted to supply services. An electronic har dware and services company spent €100,000 on external 
legal advice to establish the rules in only five Member States.  
 Pregunta 21 
¿Se tiene previsto algún plan de política encami nado al marchitamiento de los monopolios que aun 
existen en algunos Estados miembros? 
 
                                                     
 
31 Eurostat (2008d). 
32 La dispersión de los precios indica que los Estados miembros, que tuvieron diferentes puntos de 
partida en lo referente a los precios de los servicios, se hallan aún en proceso de convergencia hacia los países 
con mejores resultados en el mercado único. 
33 OCDE (2007b). 
34 El hecho de que cerca del 90 por ciento de las PY ME existentes en las CE opere en sectores de 
servicios hace que la situación sea más problemática,  dado que normalmente es as empresas no pueden 
permitirse los costos adicionales de realizar actividades transfronterizas. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 184  
 
 Respuesta
 
Monopolies are subject to the EC Treaty rules.  There are no concrete proposals in this field. 
 
110. La Directiva sobre los servicios en el mercado interior ("Directiva sobre los servicios" Nº 2006/123/CE), adoptada en diciembre de 2006,
35 tiene por objeto establecer un marco para la creación 
de un verdadero mercado interior de servicios me diante la eliminación para fines de 2009 de los 
obstáculos normativos y administrativos subsistentes entre los Estados miembros, sobre la base de dos 
elementos fundamentales:  libertad de establecimiento de empresas en otro Estado miembro y libertad de 
suministro transfronterizo de servicios en otros Estados miembros.36  Se basa en dos de las cuatro 
"libertades fundamentales" del Tratado de las CE, es d ecir, la libertad de establecimiento en otro Estado 
miembro y la libertad de sumini stro transfronterizo de servici os a otros Estados miembros.37  La propuesta 
inicial de la Comisión contenía la nor ma del país de origen para el sumi nistro transfronterizo de servicios, 
que estaba encaminada a que los proveedores de servic ios pudieran observar la legislación de su país 
cuando operaran en otro Estado miembro de las CE.  No obstante, esta cláusula fue rechazada por el 
Parlamento Europeo a causa, entre otras razones,  de las preocupaciones sobre posibles abusos y 
problemas de vigilancia.  La cláusula se sustituyó en el texto final de la Directiva sobre los servicios por 
una disposición sobre el libre suministro de servicios.38 
 
De acuerdo con el pié de pagina No 151 "se eliminan las restricciones al suministro de servicios entre los 
Estados miembros cada vez que exista un elemento transfronterizo"  Pregunta 22 
A que se refiere la referencia "cada vez que exista  un elemento transfronter izo"? Podría ampliar el 
contexto de esta libertad fundamental.  
Respuesta
 
Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty and the related European Court of Justice ("ECJ") case law 
clearly distinguishes between  the rules applicable to establishment and those applicable to 
cross-border service provision . It is important to note that the fundamental freedoms to provide cross-
border services as laid down in Article 49 EC or to establish in another Member State as laid down in 
Article 43 EC only apply where there is a factor lin king them to trade between EU Member States. 
That is, these fundamental freedoms cannot be invoked  in purely internal situations within one 
Member State in the EU. 
 Establishment (Article 43 EC) involves the actual  pursuit of an economic activity through a fixed 
establishment for an indefinite period. By contra st, according to the case law of the ECJ, the freedom 
to provide services  (Article 49 EC)  is characterised by the absence of a stable and continuous 
participation in the economic life of the host Member State .  
 As the ECJ has consistently held, the distinc tion between establishment and provision of services 
needs to be made on a case-by-case basis, taking into account not only the duration but also the 
regularity, periodicity and continuity of the provision of services. It fo llows from this, as concluded by 
                                                     
 
35 Eurostat (2008d). 
36 El plazo se estableció en la Estrategia de Lisboa. 
37 La libre circulación de servicios ha sido desde 1957 uno de los principios fundadores de las CE.  En 
las disposiciones pertinentes del Tratado de las CE se el iminan las restricciones al su ministro de servicios entre 
los Estados miembros cada vez que exis ta un elemento transfronterizo. 
38 Con arreglo a la Directiva adoptada, los obstáculos que queden después del proceso de cribado y de 
la aplicación del principio de libre suministro de se rvicios tendrán que seguir impugnándose país por país, 
norma por norma.  Dado que el procedimiento judicial puede ser costoso y lento, rara vez compensará a los 
suministradores de servicios.  Por co nsiguiente, según la OCDE, es preciso reforzar la Directiva con recursos 
más rápidos y menos costosos (OCDE, 2007b).  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 185 
 
 
 the ECJ, that there can be no general time limits set in order to distinguish between establishment and 
service provision. Neither is the fact that the provid er uses a certain infrastructure decisive, since a 
provider of services may use an infrastructure in  the host Member State for the cross-border 
provision of services without be ing established there. In a judgment of 11 December 2003 (C-215/01, 
Schnitzer) the ECJ explained that even an activity carried out over several years in another Member 
State can, depending on the circumstances of the ca se, be considered to be service provision within 
the meaning of Article 49 of the EC Treaty, as  can recurrent service provisions over an extended 
period – such as consulting or counselling activities. Establishmen t requires integration into the 
economy in the Member State involving the acquis ition of customers in that Member State from the 
basis of a stable professional domicile. 
 
Pregunta 23 
¿El concepto de "libre suministro transfronterizo" puede interpretarse entonces como la posibilidad de 
vender servicios de un miembro a otro sin requerir presencia comercial?  Respuesta
 
Yes. See reply to question 22.  Pregunta 24 
¿De lo mencionado en el párrafo 110 puede inferirse que  la libre circulación de personas, a diferencia de 
la libre circulación de servicios y de la libre circulación de capitales, es una libertad que ya está 
totalmente desarrollada y que no requiere ningún perfeccionamiento? 
 
Respuesta
 
Free movement of workers (Article 39 EC Treaty) is one of the fundamental freedoms of EC law. It 
gives EU nationals the right to move freely to anoth er Member State to work and reside there for that 
purpose, together with their family. Workers who make use of this right are protected against 
discrimination on the basis of their nationality in employment-related matters (esp. working 
conditions and pay) and concerning th e payment of social and tax advantages that may help integrate 
into the host country.   Within the competence of the EU, this fundamental right is compleme nted by the coordination of the 
different national social security schemes (Regula tion 1408/71) and a system to ensure the mutal 
recognition of diplomas (essentially Directive 2005/36/EC).  Regulation 1408/71protects the social security rights of those EU nationals who move to another Member State to work, to ensure that they do not suffer disadvantages that would discourage them 
from moving to another Member State. As these rules had been amended numerous times, they 
became very complex and difficult to deal with  and a simplified and modernised Regulation was 
adopted in 2004 (Regulation 883/ 2004). The modernised system w ill become applicable upon entry 
into force of the necessary implementing Regula tion, expected for the first half of 2010. 
 While initially the freedom to move was restricted to economically active persons and their families, it 
has since been extended to other categories (e.g. students, pensioners, and EU citizens in general) 
under the free movement of persons .  Directive 2005/36/EC provides for automatic recognitio n of diplomas of doctors, dentists, nurses, 
midwives, pharmacists, veterinary surgeons and architects throughout the EU on the basis of 
minimum harmonisation of the respective training requirements. For various activities of craft, 
commerce and industry sectors, this Directive pr ovides for a system based on the automatic 
recognition of consecutive periods of experience and skills. For all other regulated professions, the 
Directive in question provides for general rules. Un der these rules, called 'g eneral system', access to 
a profession shall be granted to a professional who is  fully qualified for the profession in question in WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 186  
 
 another Member State. However, if the duration or  the content of training of a migrant differs 
substantially from those required in the host Memb er State, compensatory measures can be imposed 
on the migrant, i.e. either an adaptation period or an aptitude test.  iii) Servicios de telecomunicaciones y servicios postales 
 139. El marco normativo comunitario de las te lecomunicaciones no ha cambiado desde el último 
examen, y sigue basándose más en la regulación de lo s mercados que en la de las tecnologías, y está 
encaminado a, entre otras cosas, establecer un régime n armonizado en los distintos Estados miembros;  
promover mercados más competitivos como medio de fo mentar la innovación y la inversión;  aplicar una 
reglamentación que afecte a todas las tecnologías por igual;  y proteger los intereses básicos de los 
consumidores en esferas como las del servicio universal, el procesamiento de datos personales y el derecho a la privacidad.  Lo componen seis directivas
39 y otros instrumentos legislativos, entre los que se 
incluyen los siguientes:  una Recomendación de la Comisión en la que se propone que las autoridades 
nacionales de reglamentación analicen un número reducido de mercados pertinentes40;  Directrices de la 
Comisión sobre análisis del mercado y evaluación del peso significativo en el mercado, que establecen 
métodos y principios comunes para las autoridade s nacionales de reglamentación encargadas de esas 
tareas41;  el Reglamento de itinerancia de las CE, que entró en vigor el 30 de junio de 2007, para 
garantizar, entre otras cosas, que las tarifas de itineran cia se reduzcan un 60 por ciento para el 1º de julio 
de 200942;  y la Recomendación de la Comisión relativ a a los mercados pertinentes de productos y 
servicios que pueden ser objeto de regulación ex  ante, adoptada el 17 de diciembre de 2007. 
 
De acuerdo con el párrafo 139, la normativa com unitaria de las telecomunicaciones, la conforman 6 
Directivas.  
 
                                                      
39 En 1999 la Comisión inició un examen genera l del subsector de las telecomunicaciones, cuyo 
resultado fue la adopción de un nuevo marco normativo en marzo de 2002.  El plazo para su aplicación en las 
CE-15 era el 25 de julio de 2003, para los 10 nuevos Estados miembros, el 1º de mayo de 2004, y para Bulgaria y Rumania, el 1º de enero.  La mayoría de los Estados miembros ha notificado a la Comisión sus análisis del 
mercado de las telecomunicaciones, según lo dis puesto en el nuevo marco regulador (OMC, 2007). 
40 Recomendación Nº 2007/879/CE.  El objetivo es  regular menos, pero de manera más eficaz, 
reduciendo la reglamentación en los casos en los que la  competencia ya haya dado resultados, y abordar los 
principales estrangulamientos.  Los mercados pertinen tes que hay que regular han pasado de 18 a 7, una vez 
eliminados los siguientes:  los serv icios telefónicos locales/nacionales pr estados en una ubicación fija para 
clientes residenciales;  los servicios telefónicos inte rnacionales prestados en una ubicación fija para clientes 
residenciales;  los servicios telefónicos locales/nacionales prestados en una ubicación fija para clientes 
empresariales;  los servicios telefónicos internacional es prestados en una ubicación fija para clientes 
empresariales;  el conjunto mínimo de  líneas arrendadas;  los servicios de tránsito en la red de telefonía fija;  
segmentos troncales de líneas arrendadas al por mayor;   el acceso y originación de llamadas en las redes de 
telefonía móvil;  la itinerancia internacional en redes de telefonía móvil;  y la transmisión de emisiones 
difundidas.  Los mercados que siguen estando regulados, por no ser aún efectiva la competencia, y en los que 
siguen sin ser realidad los beneficios a los consumidores, son los siguientes:  el acceso a la red telefónica en una 
ubicación fija;  la originación de llamadas en la red tele fónica facilitada en una ubicación fija;  la terminación de 
llamadas en redes telefónicas individu ales facilitada en una ubicación fija;  el acceso al por mayor a los bucles 
locales;  el acceso de banda ancha al por mayor;  segmen tos de terminación de líneas arrendadas al por mayor;  
y la terminación de llamadas vocales en redes móviles individuales. 
41 Las autoridades nacionales de reglamentación, en cooperación co n la Comisión, supervisan el 
régimen normativo, junto con las autoridades nacionales  encargadas de la compet encia, y velan por que las 
normas se apliquen de manera coherente en todos los Estados miembros. 
42 Los consumidores que se benefician de la eurotarifa ahorran, como promedio, un 36,4 por ciento en 
las llamadas salientes y un 42,9 por ciento en las entran tes si se compara con los precios de los servicios de 
itinerancia en las CE de principios de 2007.  La Comisión ha propuesto recientemente extender el alcance de 
este reglamento a los servicios de mensajería de mensajes breves y de itinerancia de datos (comunicado de 
prensa Europa IP/08/136, de 23 de septiembre de 2008).  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 187 
 
 
 Pregunta 25 
Alguna de estas directivas establece requisitos o  esp ecificaciones  para los servicios de valor agregado 
(entendidos como aquellos que se di ferencian de los servicios básicos). Como funciona este mercado? 
 
Respuesta  
According to the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications, the national regulatory 
authorities have an obligation to analyse relevant market s susceptible to ex ante regulation. If these 
market(s) are not found effectively competitive, a regulator needs to designate undertakings with 
significant market power and impose appropriate regulatory obligations on them. The Commission adopts (and regularly reviews) a Re commendation that lists those relevant markets 
which regulators have to analyse as described abo ve. This Recommendation does not contain any 
markets that would be directly linked to the provisi on of value-added services (in the meaning used by 
WTO, i.e. "telecommunications for which suppliers 'add value' to the cust omer's information by 
enhancing its form or content or by providing fo r its storage and retrieval"). Consequently value-
added services as such are not subject to ex ante regulation. 
However, the Recommendation incl udes a number of wholesale markets which are relevant for the 
providers of value-added services. For instance, regul ation of markets for wholesale call origination 
and call termination on fixed networks as well as  call termination on individual mobile networks 
determine the conditions under which any service  provider, including value-added service providers, 
can have access to these wholesale inputs, which in  most cases are necessary for the provision of 
value-added services at the retail level. 
 
iv) Transporte d) Transporte marítimo  
159. Las CE han concluido recientemente acuerdos co n la República de Corea, la Federación de Rusia 
y Ucrania para permitir el acceso mutuo a los servicios de transporte marítimo y conceder el derecho de 
establecer compañías marítimas.  Las CE también c oncluyeron un acuerdo de transporte marítimo con 
China en 2002, y actualmente mantienen negociaciones si milares con la India.  La Comisión coordina la 
posición de las CE en la Organización Marítima Intern acional (OMI);  por su parte, la Agencia Europea 
de Seguridad Marítima (AESM) proporciona a la Comisi ón y los Estados miembros asistencia científica y 
técnica en lo relativo a la legislación sobre la segurid ad marítima, la prevención de la contaminación y la 
reacción frente a la contaminación. 
 
Pregunta 26 
¿En los acuerdos mencionados, cuál es el alcance del c oncepto de "compañías navieras de la otra Parte"? 
¿Se circunscribe el concepto a la persona jurídi ca establecida de acuerdo con las leyes de un Estado 
Miembro de la Comunidad Europea o de la otra Parte, respectivamente , y que tiene su domicilio social, 
administración central o domicilio comercial principal en el territorio al cual se aplica el Tratado que establece la Comunidad Europea o en el territorio de la otra Parte, respectivamente; o tiene una cobertura 
diferente? 
 
Respuesta
 
The agreements mentioned in question 26 refer to shipping companies and not shipowners as such.  
A clear example of the coverage of shipping co mpanies is contained in the 2002 EU-China maritime 
transport agreement (OJ L46/25 of 21.2.2008) where sh ipping company is defin ed in article 3 (e):  
" 'shipping company' means a company wh ich meets the following conditions:  
(i) being constituted in accordance with the public  or private laws of China, or the Community 
 or a Member State of the Community; 
(ii) having its registered office or central adminis tration or principal place of business in China 
 or the Community respectively, (iii) engaging in international shipping servi ce with its owned or operated vessels.  
 Shipping companies established outside the Comm unity or China and controlled by nationals WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 188  
 
  of a Member State of the Community or of Ch ina respectively, shall also be beneficiaries of 
 the provisions of this Agreement, if their ves sels are registered in that Member State or in 
 China in accordance with their legislation;"  vi) Servicios profesionales 
  169. Los servicios profesionales desempeñan una funció n importante en la mejora de la competitividad 
de las CE, con repercusiones en toda la economía.   En general, hay diferencias significativas de un 
Estado miembro a otro en lo que se refiere a la regulación de los servicios profesionales, así como de una profesión a otra.  Además, el subsector se caracteriza por los elevados niveles de reglamentación 
restrictiva, por ejemplo en lo que se refiere a las li cencias (por ejemplo, prescripciones sobre la entrada y 
existencia de funciones reservadas)  y las normas de conducta, incluida la fijación de precios por las 
asociaciones profesionales.  Por este motivo, la Co misión, junto a las autoridades nacionales de 
competencia, está examinando el marco normativo actual del subsector (fijado a menudo por los gobiernos nacionales) para eliminar las r estricciones reglamentarias injustificadas. 
 Pregunta 27 
¿Al interior de las Comunidades Europeas, existen Acuerdos de Reconocimientos Mutuo para ciertas 
profesiones? Si la respuesta es afirmativa:  
 
Respuesta
 
The EC Treaty provides that the European Comm unity adopts rules on the recognition of professional 
qualifications to facilitate the free movement of persons. Accordingly, EU legislation (several 
directives) has been introduced to  ensure the mutual recognition of qualifications in all regulated 
professions. 
 
Pregunta 28 ¿En cuáles profesiones y qué características generales tienen este tipo de acuerdos?  
 
Respuesta
 
The EU achieved harmonisation of training requirem ents for seven professions (doctors, dentists, 
nurses, midwives, pharmacists, veterinary surge ons and architects). Although the harmonisation 
concerns only the minimum training requirements (which means that in some Member States 
additional training is required for their nationals), the diplomas are recognized automatically throughout the EU. For various ac tivities of craft, commerce and industry sectors a system based on 
the automatic recognition of consecutive periods of exp erience and skills has been put in place. For 
all other regulated professions EU law provides for general rules. Under these  rules, called 'general 
system', access to a profession shall be granted to a professional who is fully qualified for the 
profession in question in another Member State. However, if the duration or the content of training of a migrant differs substantially from those required in the host Member State, compensatory measures 
can be imposed on the migrant, i.e. either an adaptat ion period or an aptitude test. The current legal 
basis is essentially the recently adopted Di rective 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional 
qualifications. 
 
Pregunta 29 
¿Cuál ha sido el proceso que han tenido que llevar  a cabo las Comunidades Europeas para alcanzar ese 
tipo de acuerdos?  Respuesta
 
The directives in question have been adopted und er the regular procedures of EU legislation. 
 Pregunta 30 
¿Qué evaluación se tiene del funcionamiento de ese ti po de acuerdos desde su implementación hasta hoy?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 189 
 
 
 Respuesta  
A proper evaluation of the legislation has not yet  been carried out. However, according to the 
information available, the systems in place work very well. In fact, statistics show that in the large 
majority of applications positive decisions are taken. 
 
PROPIEDAD INDUSTRIAL  
Derechos de propiedad intelectual (DPI) 
Patentes 
 El 27 de mayo de 2006, las Comunidades Europ eas adoptaron el Reglamento (CE) No.º816/2006, 
sobre la concesión de licencias obligatorias sobre patentes relativas a la fabricación de productos 
farmacéuticos destinados a la exportación a pa íses con problemas de salud pública.  Con este 
Reglamento, las CE han establecido el fundamento ju rídico para la concesión de licencias obligatorias 
con fines de exportación de conformidad con lo prev isto en las Decisiones del Consejo General de la 
OMC de 30 de agosto de 2003 y 6 de diciembre de 2005.
43  El 19 de noviembre de 2007 las CE 
aceptaron, en nombre de la Comunidad Europea, el Protocolo por el que se modifica el Acuerdo sobre 
los ADPIC44, y el 30 de noviembre de 2007, las Comuni dades Europeas depositaron el instrumento de 
aceptación en poder del Director General de la OMC.  
Pregunta 31 
¿Cuáles son las condiciones de otorgamiento de licencias obligatorias en materia de Patentes?  
 
Respuesta
 
In order to apply for a compulsory licence, the application shall set out the following elements: 
(a) the name and contact details of the applicant  and of any agent or representative whom the 
 applicant has appointed to act for him before the competent authority; 
(b) the non-proprietary name of the pharmaceutic al product or products  which the applicant 
 intends to manufacture and sell fo r export under the compulsory licence; 
(c) the amount of pharmaceutical product which the applicant seeks to produce under the 
 compulsory licence; (d) the importing country or countries; 
(e) where applicable, evidence of prior negotiation with the rights-holder pursuant to Article 9; 
(f)  evidence of a specific request from: (i) authorised representatives of the importing country or  countries; or (ii) a non-governmental organisa tion acting with the formal authorisation of 
 one or more importing countries; or (iii)  UN bodies or other international health 
 organisations acting with the formal authoris ation of one or more importing countries, 
 indicating the quantity of product required. 
 Pregunta 32 
¿Que entidades Gubernamentales participan en el proceso de aprobación de Licencias Obligatorias? 
 
Respuesta
 
The national authority involved in the process is th e authority which has competence for the granting of 
compulsory licences under national patent law, unl ess the Member State determines otherwise. The 
national competent authority in EU Member States is represented by the National Patent Office or the 
District Court.  
 
                                                      
43 Comisión Europea, comunicado de prensa IP/06/550, de 28 de abril de 2006. 
44 Decisión Nº 2007/768/CE del Consejo, de 19 de noviembre de 2007, DO L 311, de 29 de noviembre 
de 2007, página 35. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 190  
 
 Pregunta 33 
¿En qué casos se otorgaron licencias obligatorias y cuál ha sido  el impacto de la medida? 
 
Respuesta
 
So far no notification from eligible  importing countries to use the system was received by EU Member 
States.  
 Obtenciones vegetales  
Las variedades que sean objeto de una protección co munitaria de obtención vegetal no podrán ser 
objeto simultáneamente de una protección nacional de obtención vegetal.  Las acciones por infracción 
puede ser ejercidas por el titular, quien ha de ser  indemnizado adecuadamente en caso de infracción.  
Los Estados miembros deben garantizar que las san ciones aplicables en caso de infracción de la 
protección comunitaria de obtención vegetal sean e quivalentes a las correspondientes a la protección 
comunitaria de obtención vegetal. 
La protección comunitaria de las variedades vegetale s se otorga por medio de la Oficina comunitaria 
de variedades vegetales.  La Oficina recibió 2. 162 solicitudes entre enero y septiembre de 2008, 
2.977 solicitudes en 2007, y 2.735 en 2006, y otorgó 2.616 títulos en 2007 y 2.289 en 2006.
45  L a  
mayor parte de las solicitudes y los títulos corresponden a variedades ornamentales (aproximadamente el 61 por ciento de todas las solicitudes y el 60 por ciento de todos los títulos).
46   
 
Pregunta 34 ¿Dentro de las medidas de observancia adoptadas 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 
una operación en fronteras que implique una infracción a los Derechos de Obtentor de Nuevas Variedades 
Vegetales, y/o  permitan proteger est e tipo de derechos en las fronteras? 
 Respuesta
 
EC Regulation 1383/2003 allows th e customs authorities to temporarily detain goods suspected of 
infringing certain intellectual property rights. This Regulation also applies to goods which, in the EU 
Member State in which the application for custom action is made, infringe a national plant variety right under the law of that EU Member State or the Community  plant variety right of the kind provided for in 
Regulation 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights.  
d) Observancia 
 
En un estudio reciente sobre los efectos de la falsificación en las pequeñas y medianas empresas de las CE se recomendaba lo siguiente:  un cambio f undamental en las actitudes públicas y empresariales 
ante la protección y la observancia de los DPI en  las CE (en particular, un enfoque de "tolerancia 
cero" ante la infracción de los DPI, resistencia ante las infracciones de los DPI, y aplicación de 
medidas de apoyo dirigidas a las PYME );  la reducción de las tasas de registro de marcas de fábrica o 
de comercio comunitarias para las PYME, la pr esión en favor de la introducción de una patente 
comunitaria, la creación de un banco de datos de pr oductos originales; la elaboración de programas de 
formación sobre los DPI, el establecimiento de un servicio de información;  y la introducción de 
planes de seguro de costas judiciales.
47 
 
Pregunta 35 
¿En que consisten  los Planes de Seguros de Co stos Judiciales  adoptados  por el Estado? 
                                                      
45 OCOV (2006) y (2007). 
46 Información en línea de la Oficina comunitaria de variedades vegetales.  Consultada en:  
http://www.cpvo.eu.int/default.php?res=1&w=102 4&h=602&lang=en&page=ocvv/statistiques.htm. 
47 Technopolis (2007).  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 191 
 
 
 Respuesta  
The European Commission has undertaken a number of studies on patent litigation insurance. The 
most recent of these evaluated the feasibility of a small number of schemes and concluded that only a 
mandatory system would be economically viable. Howeve r, this type of scheme has been put into 
question with recent work on setting up volunta ry schemes, and the Commission will continue to 
follow further developments in this field.  
CANADA
 
 Report by the Government (WT/TPR/G/214) 
 
Part II. Key Developments in the EC: (2) Deve lopments in the Internal Market and Central 
Policy Areas; paragraphs 15-16, page 6: and;  Secretariat Report: Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (3) Energy; paragraph 76, page 120: 
 Paragraphs 15-16 and 76 indicate that key energy- policy developments have taken place to address to 
structural shortcomings of the energy market:  
Question 1 
Could the EC provide an update on any upcoming polic y directions that are intended to create a more 
competitive Europe-wide energy market? 
 
Answer
 
1. EU Energy Policy update Competitiveness is one pillar of the EU Energy Policy, the other two being Sustainability and Security 
of Supply. The political direction can be summari sed into three drivers endorsed by the European 
Council in March 2007: 
1) a reduction of 20% in Greenhouse Gas emissions by 2020, compared to 1990 levels, 
and 30 % in case of an international agreement (UNFCC)  
2) an increase by 20% in energy efficiency by 2020, 
3) a binding target of 20% of renewable energ y sources in final energy consumption by 
2020, including a 10% binding target for renewables in transport. 
 
In December 2008 the Council and Parliament agreed concrete proposals marking two important 
steps in this direction: a new Renewable Energy Directive providing a framework for implementing 
the target for renewables and a revised EU Emissi on Trading Scheme Directive providing a clear 
scheme for the efforts of reducing greenhou se gas emissions for the period 2012-2020. 
 
The Second Strategic Energy Review adopted by the Commission in November 2008, indicates that 
this strategy is the right direction to go in from a medium to long-term energy security viewpoint. In 
the short to medium term, Eur ope's dependence on imports in th e changing global energy market and 
geopolitical situation means that e ffective provisions for preventi ng and dealing with supply crises 
must be in place. With the integration of en ergy markets and infrastructures within the EU, specific 
national solutions are often insu fficient. The forthcoming revision of the Directive on measures to 
safeguard the Security of Gas Supply should en hance the EU resilience to a possible gas supply 
disruption, providing a clear framework for solidarity between responsible Member States. 
 On external energy policy, the Stra tegic Energy Review focuses on the need to speak with one voice 
with suppliers, such as Russia, the Caspian, O PEC, and Africa, as well as with other consumer 
countries, on a number of key identified issues.  The third internal energy market legislative pack age will help foster a more favourable climate for 
energy infrastructure projects (see below). To help deliver energy projects, the Commission is WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 192  
 
 reviewing the present Trans-European Energy Netw ork Instrument, which at present is seriously 
limited in both scope - electricity and gas - and resou rces (20 millions euros per year). We would like 
the TEN-E policy to evolve into a more effective EU energy Security and In frastructure Instrument. 
Oil and carbon infrastructures (for Carbon Capture and Storage) have to be examined too. Energy 
investments are also part of the solution to our current economic difficulties. The Commission has put 
energy investments at the heart of its 5 billion eu ros Economic Recovery Plan.  Through appropriate 
investments we can have energy which is at once more secure and sustainable. 
 2. Gas and electricity EU internal market update  
The Third Internal Energy Market legislative Package is expected to be adopted this Summer. 
 The main objective of the package is to put in pl ace the regulatory framewo rk needed to make market 
opening fully effective and create a single EU gas and electricity market in the interest of better energy prices and security for the citizens and the industry of the European Union. The package 
promotes sustainability by stimulating energy efficiency and guaranteeing that even smaller 
companies, for instance those that invest in ren ewable energy, have acce ss to the energy market. A 
competitive market will also ensure greater security of supply, by  improving the conditions for 
investments in power plants and transmission networks, and thus help avoid interruptions in power or 
gas supplies. Guarantees of fair competition with third country companies are also strengthened. The 
role of the Commission was instrumental in rea ching this compromise in Second Reading under this  
legislature. It is hoped that both Council and Par liament will now be able to endorse the common text 
agreed in March.  The compromise preserv ed all the key elements of the Commi ssion's proposal of 19 September 2007. 
 
• Facilitating cross-border energy trade with the establishment of an Agency for the 
cooperation of National Energy Regulators, w ith binding decision powers, to complement 
National Regulators. This will ensure th e proper handling of cross-border cases and 
enable the EU to develop a real European network working as one single grid, promoting diversity and security of supply.  
 
• Promoting cross border collaboration and invest ment with a new European Network for 
Transmission System Operators. EU grid  operators would cooperate and develop 
common commercial and technical codes and security standards, as well as plan and 
coordinate the investments needed at EU level . This would also ease cross border trade 
and create a more level playing field for operators. 
 
• Increased solidarity: by bringing nationa l markets closer together, the Commission 
foresees more potential for Memb er States to assist one another in the face of energy 
supply threats. 
 
• Providing for more effective regulatory oversi ght from national regulators independent 
and having all necessary powers; 
 
• Ensuring effective unbundling of the generation and transmission of energy so as to 
eliminate any conflict of interests, promote network investment and prevent any 
discriminatory behaviour; 
 
• Greater transparency: Steps to improve market transparency on network operation and 
supply will guarantee equal access to inform ation, make pricing more transparent, 
increase trust in the market and help avoid market manipulation.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 193 
 
 
 Question 2 
Please further advise if the downgraded economic conditions have or will alter energy policy 
measures in the short to medium term?  
Answer
 
There has been no alteration of our policy measu res. However, extraordinary and immediate efforts 
are needed to counter the serious, unprecedented economic  situation. In order to restore confidence 
among market players, measures impacting on the ec onomy need to be finalized without delay.  
Financial support to energy infrastructure is theref ore foreseen the framewor k of the recovery plan 
(EERP Regulation) in particular to overcome the la ck of access to finance, which is holding back the 
implementation of a large number of infrastructure projects.  
 Part III. Key Developments in the EC’s Tr ade Policy (2007-08); (3) Creating the Right 
Environment for Trade: paragraph 45, page 14:  
The EC notes in its report that a priority for the Commission’s key strategy for the 2008-2010 cycle is 
investing in knowledge and investment . Part of this strategy is to fu rther help SMEs to better exploit 
their property rights.  
 
Question 3 
Could the EC please explain steps they are taking in this regard?  
Answer
 
The EC has taken a number of initiatives with regar d to the investment in knowledge and innovation. 
It prepared a study in 2007 to investigate how SMEs are affected by counterfeiting. Based on this, a 
"best practices" project on IPR enforcement support measures was set up (2007-2009), and EU 
Member States’ experts made policy recommendations in this area (see 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ent erprise_policy/indu stry/index_en.htm ). The recommendations 
encourage public authorities to improve the support measures for a good management of intellectual 
assets by SMEs.  Moreover, several EU-level direct support measures for SMEs have been launched: 
 
(i) "IPeuropAware": established in 2007, the IPeuropAware network is composed of 20 
 European National Patent Offices. The main objective is to upgrade the provision of IPR 
 support services to SMEs. "IPeuropAware" also manages the InnovAccess website 
 (http://www.innovaccess.eu/home.html
); 
 
(ii) China IPR SME Helpdesk: The China IPR SM E Helpdesk provides free information, first-line 
 advice and training support to European SMEs to help them protect and enforce their IPR in  China (http://www.china-iprhelpdesk.eu/
); 
 (iii) "Enterprise Europe Network": launched in 2008, the Enterprise Europe Network provides a 
 "one-stop shop" for enterprises for information and advice on European matters 
 (http://www.enterprise-europe-n etwork.ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm
). 
 A number of network members have specialized know ledge of various aspects of IP management. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 194  
 
 Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/214) 
 Part II. Trade and Investment Regime: (4) Trade Regulations and Business Environment: 
paragraph 20, page 19:  
Question 4 Could the EC provide more specifics regarding the coverage, targeting and eligibility criteria trigger 
mechanisms for the "Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme"?   
Answer
 
A) Coverage   
The Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (EIP) is one of three specific programmes under 
the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP)48, running from 2007 to 2013. The 
EIP covers the 27 member states of the EU. In addition,  the legal basis provides for the participation 
of non-EU countries, see below.  
 
There are currently 10 non-EU countries participating in the EIP:  
 
• Albania (with certain limitations) 
• Croatia 
• the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia 
• Iceland  
• Israel (not financial instruments) (based  on provisional application of protocol) 
• Liechtenstein 
• Montenegro 
• Norway 
• Serbia  
• Turkey 
 
The participation of non-EU countries is based on Article 4 of the CIP Decision:  
 
Participation of third countries The Framework Programme shall be open to the participation of: 
 (a) European Free Trade Association (EFTA)  countries which are members of the 
 European Economic Area (EEA), in accordan ce with the conditions laid down in the 
 EEA Agreement;  (b) accession countries and candidate countries benefiting from a pre-accession strategy, 
 in accordance with the ge neral principles and general terms and conditions for the 
 participation of those countries in Co mmunity programmes established in the 
 respective Framework Agreements and Association Council Decisions; 
 (c) countries of the Western Balkans, in accor dance with the provisions to be determined 
 with those countries following the establishment of Framework Agreements 
 concerning their participati on in Community programmes; 
 
(d) other third countries, when Ag reements and procedures so allow." 
                                                     
 
48 Decision No. 1639/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 
establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Fram ework Programme (2007 to  2013) (OJ L 310/15, 
9.11.2006).  For more information see the CIP portal under http://ec.europa.eu/cip/index_en.htm.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 195 
 
 
 B) Targeting  
 The EIP has a budget for the period 2007-2013 of less than EUR 2.2 billion. The EIP targets particularly Small and Medium Sized Enterprises. De pending on the area of action, SMEs may benefit 
either directly (from improved access to finan ce via financial instruments, from business and 
innovation services or from participating in pilo t and market replication projects) or indirectly 
through policy support measures underpinning policies that aim to improve framework conditions for 
doing business. The CIP legal basis (see footnote 1) states that the EIP has the following objectives:  Article 10 Establishment and objectives 
1. The Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme in support of enterprise, 
particularly SMEs, entrepreneurship, i nnovation, including eco-innovation and 
industrial competitiveness is hereby established. 
2. The Entrepreneurship an d Innovation Programme shall provide for action to 
support, improve, encourage and promote: 
(a) access to finance for the start-up and growth of SMEs and investment in 
innovation activities; 
(b) the creation of an environment favour able to SME cooperation, particularly 
in the field of cross-border cooperation; 
(c) all forms of innovation in enterprises; (d) eco-innovation; 
(e) entrepreneurship and innovation culture; 
(f) enterprise and innovation-related economic and administrative reform. 
 C) Eligibility criteria  
There is no harmonised approach with regard to eligib ility criteria in the EIP due to the variety of 
implementation mechanisms used and due to the na ture of the EIP being largely a policy support 
programme. Implementing the EIP is carried out in respect of the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities. The funding granted shall fully comply with 
Community State aid rules and accompanying instruments (Article 6.2 of CIP Decision).  
 Below is an overview of the main actions under the EIP:  
 The financial instruments  have as an overall objective the improv ement of access to finance for the 
start-up and growth of SMEs and investment in i nnovation activities, including eco-innovation, by: 
 
• increasing investment volumes of risk capita l funds and other investment vehicles; 
• providing leverage to SME debt financing instruments and thus increasing the supply 
of debt finance to SMEs. 
 
The CIP legal base provides the basis for the fi nancial instruments for SMEs, operated by the 
European Investment Fund (EIF) together with int ernational financial institu tions on behalf of the 
Commission: 
 
• The High Growth and Innovative SME Facility (GIF)
 aims to increase the supply of 
equity for innovative SMEs in their ea rly stages (GIF1) and in the expansion phase 
(GIF2).This facility has been operational since November 2007 and is implemented by 
the European Investment Fund (EIF) on behalf of the Commission.  
• The SME Guarantee Facility (SMEG)  provides counter- or co-guarantees to 
guarantee schemes operating in eligible countries, and direct guarantees to financial 
intermediaries, in order to increase the s upply of debt finance to SMEs. SMEG has WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 196  
 
 been operational since September 2007 and is implemented by the EIF on behalf of the 
Commission.  
 
The Enterprise Europe Network  offers information support services and advice to businesses across 
Europe and helps them make the most of the oppor tunities in the European Union. The services are 
specifically designed for small and medium enterp rises (SMEs). The Enterprise Europe Network is 
made up of close to 600 partner organisations in more than 40 countries, promoting competitiveness 
and innovation at the local level in Europe and b eyond. The Network started its activities in January 
2008 and the network partners were select ed following calls for proposal.  
 
The innovation projects and eco-innovation  pilot and market replication projects cover several fields 
such as support for innovation, e-skills, e-business,  clusters or studies. Regarding Eco-innovation, 
calls for proposals for pilot and market replica tion projects are launched every year focusing on: 
(a  cleaner production processes; (b) innovative environmentally-friendly products and service; 
(c) support to enterprises (especially SMEs) in greening their business, products and 
 management methods.  
Other policy support measures  cover policy analyses, studies and conferences. Such measures are 
often implemented by external organisa tions selected after calls for tender. 
 
D) Further information : http://ec.europa.eu/cip/index_en.htm 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure:  (2) Measures directly affecting imports; (vi) 
Import prohibition, restriction and licensing , (b) Quantitative restrictions and licensing: 
paragraphs 40-46, page 50: 
 
Paragraph 46 indicates that certain steel produc ts from Russia and Kazakhstan are subject to 
quantitative restrictions.  
 
Question 5 
Could the EC please provide the following details of these quantitative restrictions: product coverage, 
duration, levels, implementation/ad ministration and the EC authority under which the restrictions 
were imposed and are currently maintained?  
 
Answer
 
Partnership and Cooperation Agreements between the EC and Russia and Kazakhstan respectively 
stipulate that imports into the European Commun ity of certain steel products, shall be subject to 
specific bilateral agreements setting on quantitative restrictions.   The current bilateral steel ag reement with Russia is from November 2007. Since January 2007, 
autonomous measures are in force with Kazakhstan  until a new steel agreeme nt is concluded. The 
quota level for 2009 for Russia is 3,1 million tonn es and cover flat and long products while the quota 
level for 2009 for Kazakhstan 205.000 tonnes cover flat products.   
 These bilateral agreements will lapse in the event that these countries join the WTO.  
 Legislation: 
 
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1051/2008 of 24 October 2008 amending Annex V to Council Regulation (EC) No. 1342/2007 as regards the quantitative limits of certain steel products from the 
Russian Federation, OJ L282, 25.10.2008, p.12  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 197 
 
 
 Council Regulation (EC) No. 1342/ 2007 of 22 October 2007 on administering certain restrictions on 
imports of certain steel products from the Russian Federation, OJ  L300, 17. 11.2007, p.1 
 Council Decision of 22 October 2007 concerning the conclusion of an agreement between the 
European Community and the Russian Federation on trade in certain steel products (2007/739/EC) 
 
Council Regulation (EC) No 1340/2008 of 8 D ecember 2008 on trade in certain steel products 
between the European Community and the Republic of Kazakhstan, OJ L348, 24.12.2008, p. 
 Part II. Trade and Investment Regime; (5) Tr ade Agreements and Arrangements; (i) Overview; 
paragraph 26, page 20: and;  
Part II. Trade and Investment Regime; (5) Trade Agreements and Arrangements; (iii) 
preferential trade agreements and arrang ements (a) Agreements with European 
countries/groupings, European Economic Area: paragraph 41, page 24:  
Question 6 In the context of the EC’s bilateral trade agreemen ts (and the EEA), has the EC provided further tariff 
liberalisation for goods subject to review within such agreements?  
Answer
 
Trade in agriculture between Norway and the EC is regulated by Article 19 of the EEA Agreement 
which foresees progressive trade liberalisation in agric ulture. To this end the Parties shall carry out 
regular reviews on bilateral trade conditions on a re gular basis which means a two years interval. In 
March 2008, negotiations were resumed on further liberalisation of trade in agricultural products. 
While some preliminary results have been agreed, negotiations are foreseen to be concluded during 
the second half of this year.  
The trade with Switzerland is regulated by our bilateral FTA and an agreement on agricultural trade 
from 1999 which contains a revision clause on further liberalisation of trade in agricultural products. 
In autumn 2008,  the parties started negotiations ai ming at a full liberalisation of trade in ago-food 
sector. In order to ensure the correct implementa tion of such an agreement, the key element of the 
negotiations is the full uptake by Switzerland of the EC's "acquis communautaires" in the areas 
concerned – EC legislation dealt with under the CAP. (Food law, labelling, certification, method of 
analysis etc.). For the time being two negotiating rou nds have been held, and it is difficult to foresee 
when this negotiations  will be concluded. 
 Part II. Trade and Investment Regime; (5) Trade Agreements and Arrangements; (iii) 
preferential trade agreement and arrang ements (a) Agreements with European 
countries/groupings, EC accession: paragraph 38, page 23: 
 
The report notes that both Bulgaria and Romania join ed the EC in January 2007 and that there were 
no transitional restrictions on trade in goods when they acceded.  
Question 7 
Can the EC confirm that newly acceded Member States adopt the EC common tariff immediately on 
the date of accession (i.e., that there is no tran sition period or exceptions when adopting the EC 
tariff)?  
Answer
 
Yes, the newly acceded MS shall apply the common ta riff from the day 1 of accession. This provision 
is stated in the Accession Treaty  
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 198  
 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure; (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; (i) 
Customs Procedures: paragraph 11, page 36:  Question 8 
Can the EC specify areas where national (i.e. Member States’) customs legislation applies?  
 Answer
 
National legislation applies in areas such as VAT,  Excise, national statistics, disputes and appeals, 
national Prohibitions and Restrictions....  
Question 9 Will the EC pursue further implementation of co mmon customs procedures between Member States, 
in addition to the Binding Tariff Information (BTI) system? 
 
Answer
 
Common rules for national authorisations for simplif ied procedures and for Single Authorisations for 
simplified procedures involving more than on e member State are being implemented. 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure; (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; (ii) Tariffs; (a) Common customs MFN tariff: paragraph 16, page 39:  
The Secretariat’s Report notes that 9.6% of the EC ’s tariff lines have nuisance rates of less than 2%. 
 
Question 10 
Does the EC intend to reduce the percentage of tariff lines currently subject to a rate of 2% or less? 
 
Answer
 
The EU shall not undertake any autonomous liberalisa tion as it considers that such duties can only be 
eliminated in a round where other parties shall reciprocate such concessions.  
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure; (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; (iii) 
Other charges; (a) Value-added tax: paragraph 22, page 43: 
 The Secretariat report notes that the Value-added tax (VAT) base is largely harmonized across the 
EC, but rates, derogations and procedures differ across Member States.  
Question 11 
Can the EC provide more information on how the application of the VAT can differ across Member 
States (e.g., what are the standard rate, reduced rate, super reduced rate)?   
 
Answer
 
Detailed information about the different rates applic able in the different Member States can be found 
in Table III.3, page 44 of document WT/TPR/S/214. 
 
Question 12 
Specifically, what derogations in implemen tation at the national level are allowed? 
 
Answer  
There are basically two types of derogations. 
a) Derogations provided for under Title XIII of Directive 2006/112/EC and applying 
 "until the adoption of definitive arrangements". These derogations allow certain  Member States to deviate from normal VAT rules until the adoption of a definitive  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 199 
 
 
  regime of VAT. On this basis, for exa mple, certain Member States can continue to 
 exempt the supply of new buildings taki ng place on their respective territory. 
b) Derogations subject to authorization from the Council. On the basis of Article 395 of 
 Directive 2006/112/EC, Member States may be authorized to derogate from the  common VAT rules in order to simplify th e procedure for charging the tax or to 
 prevent certain types of tax evasion or avoidance.
  
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure; (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; (iii) 
Other charges; (a) Value-added tax: paragraph 24, page 45:  
The Secretariat report notes that imports and domestic supplies of certain goods for a specific purpose 
are exempt from VAT.  
Question 13 
Can the EC provide a full list of the goods that ar e fully exempt from the VAT at the entire EC level? 
 
Answer
 
Exemptions are provided for in Title IX of Direc tive 2006/112. The different ca tegories of exemptions 
are the following: 
- exemption of activities in the public int erest (public postal services, health, 
 education…), 
- exemption of other internal transactions  (notably bank and insurance activities, 
 immovable property other than before the first occupation). - exemption of exports as well as other trans actions treated as exports (f.ex : supplies 
 to international bodies), - exemption relating to international transport, 
- exemption of transactions relating to int ernational trade (such as activities taking 
 place in customs warehouses and similar arrangements). - exemption of intra-community supplies of goods, 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure; (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; (iv) Duty and tax exemptions and con cessions: paragraph 31, pages 47-48: 
 The Secretariat’s Report outlines the main components of the EC regime on duty and tax concessions.   
 
Question 14 
Can the EC provide further details on duty re lief provided in the following areas: special 
circumstances, drawback scheme, inward processing, and free zones?  
 
Answer
 
Under inward processing non-Community goods intende d for re-export from the customs territory of 
the Community in the form of a compensating product may be used in the processing operation 
without such goods being subject to import duties or commercial policy measures. The authorisation 
granted by customs authorities is required to benefit from the procedure. The authorisation is granted 
once the conditions stated in the customs legisl ation are fulfilled. Same applies for inward processing 
drawback system. This arrangement provides fo r repayment or remission of the import duties 
chargeable on them at the time of release for free circulation if they are exported from the customs 
territory of the Community in the fo rm of compensating products. Also  goods placed in free zones are 
considered for the purposes of import duties and co mmercial policy measures as not being on the 
Community customs territory.       WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 200  
 
 Question 15 
Can the EC provide further details on the eliminati on of the drawback system, including its planning 
horizon?  
Answer
 
Under the recently approved customs code (Moderni zed Customs Code) the drawback system will be 
the eliminated.  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure; (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; (iv) Duty and tax exemptions and con cessions: paragraph 31, pages 47-48: 
 The Secretariat report notes that, "The customs c ode of the EC provides for customs duty relief on 
account of special circumstances…"  
Question 16 
Can the EC provide information on its treatment of  repaired and altered goods, specifically, when 
goods are temporarily imported for repair or altera tion purposes, and when goods re-enter the EC after 
repair or alteration by a third party?  
Answer
 
Where the purpose of the processing operation is the repair of temporar ily exported goods, on re-
importation the processed products are either duty-free if the goods were repaired free of charge 
because of an obligation arising from a guarantee or  because of a manufacturing defect, or liable to 
the import duties for the processed products  on the basis of the repair costs .  
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure:  (2) Measures directly affecting imports; (vi) 
Import prohibition, restriction and licensing , (b) Quantitative restrictions and licensing: 
paragraphs 42-45, page 50: 
 
Paragraphs 42-45 describe the EC import surveillan ce/licensing system and the products to which it 
applies. Steel products are one of those identified in paragraph 45.   Question 17 
Could the EC please expand on the purpose of the system as it applies to one of its objectives: "to 
improve control of the origin of the products"?   
Answer
 
The main objective of the prior surveillance is to provide advanced statistical information permitting 
rapid analysis of import trends. 
 
Question 18 
Further, is the statistical information de veloped from the system publicly available? 
 Answer
 
Yes, it is publicly available on the EU's website "Europa" 
(http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/s ectoral/industry/st eel/index_en.htm) 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure:  (2) Measures directly affecting imports; (vii) 
Contingency measures: paragraph 55, page 53:   
Paragraph 55 notes that special rules apply to the de termination of normal value in the case of imports 
from "non-market economy countries". It further state that for anti-dumping investigations concerning 
imports from China, Vietnam and Kazakhstan [...], nor mal value is based on the price paid or payable  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 201 
 
 
 in the ordinary course of trade in that country, if it is shown that market conditions prevail for the 
respective producer.   
Question 19 
Could the EC please confirm that the first sentenc e relates to non-WTO members, whereas the second 
sentence relates to WTO members? 
 
Answer  
Article 2 (7) a Council Regulation (EC) No. 384/96 of 22 December 1995 relates in the first place to 
non-market economy countries which are not memb ers of the WTO. However, it covers also 
non-market economy countries which have been memb ers at the time this amendment was done or 
became subsequently members of the WTO and that did not meet the criteria set out in Article 2 (7) b 
of Council Regulation (EC) No. 384/96 of 22 December 1995. 
 
Regarding imports originating from China, Viet nam, Kazakhstan and any other non-market economy 
that is a member of the WTO: 
 
Question 20 
Could the EC please describe in detail the assessment criteria and process for determining that market 
conditions prevail for a producer?   Answer
 
Producer coming from a country in transition will be a ssessed on the basis of the criteria laid down in 
the EC legal basic regulation.  Question 21 
How is this assessment process triggered? (e.g . substantial allegation by the respondent) 
 
Answer  
A claim that market conditions prevail for a producer must be made in writing and must contain 
sufficient evidence that he operates under market c onditions as specific determined in the EC legal 
basic regulation (Council Regulation –EC-No 384/96  of 22 December 1995; Official Journal L 56, 
6.3.1996, p1). The assessment would be done case by case. 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(vii) Contingency measures: paragraph 56, pages 53 and 54:  
 Paragraph 56 mentions that between July 2006 and June 2008, 36 new Anti-dumping cases and 60 
reviews were initiated, a nd one partial reopening. 
 
Question 22 
Could the EC please explain what is  meant by "partial reopening"?  
 Answer
 
This case involved the partial re-opening of the orig inal investigation under Article 5 of the EC Basic 
Regulation concerning certain prepared or preserved sweet corn in kernels originating in Thailand. 
The reopening was limited in scope to the examinati on of dumping as far as one exporting producer, 
Kuiburi Fruit Canning Co., Limited (‘Kuibur i’ or ‘the company’),was concerned.   
 
Question 23 
To which case (country - product) does this sentence alludes? 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 202  
 
 Answer
 
See question 22.  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e; (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(vii) Contingency measures; (c) sa feguards: paragraph 62, page 55; 
 The Secretariat’s report notes that the EC has not taken a new safeguard measure since 2004.  
 
Question 24 
During this time, has the EC taken any bilateral safeguard measures, including provisional measures, 
available under any of its bilateral/regional trad e agreements, FTAs, association agreements, etc.? 
 
Answer
 
No.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(vii) Contingency measures; (c) safe guards: paragraph 62, page 55:  
 
Paragraph 62 reports that two surveillance measure s apply to imports of footwear from China and 
steel products on an erga omnes basis.   Question 25 
Could the EC please confirm that the legal basis of  this surveillance measures is Regulations 3030/93 
and 517/94 mentioned in paragraph 61?  
 
Answer  
Concerning steel products, Council Regulation (EC)  No. 76/2002 introducing surveillance stipulates 
that the legal bases are Regulation 3285/94 and 519/94.  As concerns footwear, as set out in Council Re gulation (EC) N.o 117/2005 introducing surveillance 
on imports of footwear from China, the legal  basis is Regulation 3285/94 for surveillance until 
31 January 2006. On 6 October 2006 by Council Regulation (EC) No. 1472/2006 a special customs proceeding, namely a strengthened administrative import surveillance system was put in place on the 
basis of Article 308(d) of Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2454/93. 
 
Question 26  
Could the EC provide further details on this surv eillance measure, including on how this can be 
imposed on a non-MFA basis? 
 
Answer
 
Concerning the application of surveillance, please ref er to Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 
3258/94 (OJ L 349, 31.12. 1994, p 53). Surveillance measures can be  introduced "where the trend in 
imports of a  product originating in a  third country threatens to cause injury to the Community 
producers,". Surveillance measures th erefore apply to a specific product from one or more specific 
country(ies). The sole purpose of surveillance is to  examine terms and conditions under which imports 
occur, and is thus different than the safeguard measures foreseen by WTO (applied on an erga omnes 
basis) which have the objective to restrict imports.  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(viii) Technical regulations and other technica l requirements; (a) Technical barriers to trade 
(TBT): paragraph 63, page 56:   
 
The Secretariat report notes that in sectors wher e Member states can still legislate, the Mutual 
Recognition Principle applies.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 203 
 
 
 Question 27 
Could the Commission provide details on which pr oducts are under the legislative authority of 
Member States and are subject to the principle of  mutual recognition when placed on the Community 
market?    Answer
 
The principle of mutual recognition applies in those areas which are not harmonised by EC 
legislation. In the non-harmonised area Member States are free to enact national measures subject 
only to the EC Treaty. In particular, in the free movement of goods, these national measures are 
subject to Article 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty. 
The new Regulation No 764/200849 (hereinafter: the "Mutual Recognition Regulation") aims inter alia 
to clarify which product categories the principle of  mutual recognition applies to by creating a non-
exhaustive list of products which are not s ubject to EC harmonisation legislation. 
The Commission is in the process of drawing up this non-exhaustive list of products, which will be 
accessible on the Europa website50 from 13 May 2009. 
 
Question 28 
Can the EC confirm whether there is any distinc tion made between importe d and EC made products 
under this principle of mutual recognition? (i.e. if  a good is manufactured in Canada and complies 
with a unique requirement of a Member State, can it then be exported legally to any other EC jurisdiction?). 
 
Answer
 
As stated in Article 24 of the EC Treaty products  coming from a third country shall be considered to 
be in free circulation in a Member State if th e import formalities have been complied with and any 
customs duties or charges having equivalent eff ect which are payable have been levied in that 
Member State, and if they have not benefited from a total or partial drawback of such duties or 
charges. There is no distinction between imported and EC ma de products once both of them have already been 
lawfully placed on the market of a Member State.  Hence, if a product manufactured in Canada is 
lawfully placed on the market of a Member State, th is product is accorded the same treatment as any 
other EC made product which is lawfully placed on  the EC territory. Therefore, the Canadian and EC 
products benefit from the free movement across th e borders of the Member States under the same 
conditions, in accordance with the principle of mutual recognition. 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(viii) Technical regulations and other technica l requirements; (a) Technical barriers to trade 
(TBT): paragraph 64, page 56:  
 
The Secretariat report states that there are two types of regulations for industrial products: "old approach" directives and "new approach" directives.  
Question 29 
Do "new approach" directives prescribe the c onformity assessment procedures used to assess 
conformance? If not, how do companies demonstrate conformity with "new approach" regulations?  
                                                     
 
 49 Regulation (EC) No. 764/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 laying 
down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in 
another Member State and repealing Decision No 3052/95/EC, JO L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 21. 
50 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/r egulation/goods/mutrec_en.htm. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 204  
 
 Answer
 
Yes. "New Approach" sectoral legislation prescribes the conformity assessment procedure(s) to be 
used to demonstrate conformity with the applic able requirements. The modules for the conformity 
assessment procedures to be used in EC harmonisa tion legislation were initially set out in Council 
Decision 93/45/EEC of 22 July 1993 concerning the m odules for the various phases of the conformity 
assessment procedures and the rules for the affixing and use of the CE conformity marking, which are 
intended to be used in the technical harmonisation directives.51  
Decision 93/45/EEC was recently replaced by EU Council and the European Parliament Decision 
No. 768/2008 of 9 July 2008 on a common framework for the marketing of products (so-called "New 
Legislative Framework - NLF").52 The NLF is a horizontal framework setting out the common 
framework of general principles and reference prov isions for the drawing up of EC harmonising 
legislation on the marketing of products. NLF sets out , inter alia, a number of conformity assessment 
procedures.  All procedures set out in the NLF serve for the sector al legislator as a simple, clear, coherent and 
complete menu from which to select the most appr opriate procedure(s) for the specific area of 
activity, in proportion to the level of risk involved and the level of safety required. All procedures are 
considered as equivalent from a legislative point of view. 
The NLF is a horizontal framework and does not focus on specific sectors. When sectoral legislation is revised or newly adopted, it is expected the app licable conformity assessment procedure(s) will be 
selected from among the modules provided for in the NLF.  
 
Question 30 
Can foreign stakeholders participate in the committ ees that develop the technical characteristics that 
should be met for "new approach" regulations? 
 
Answer
 
Harmonised standards that support the implementati on of New Approach legislation are developed by 
the European Standards Organisa tions (ESO) CEN, CENELEC and ETSI, following their own rules 
and procedures, in full compliance with the WT O TBT principles of transparency and openness. Any 
stakeholder established in one of the EU and EFTA Member States can participate in European standardisation technical committees. In addition, th e international standards organisations ISO and 
IEC may delegate observers to European standardi sation committees, through the agreements signed 
between the ESOs and their international count erparts. ETSI’s procedur es provide for direct 
participation of stakeholders, including foreign stakeholders.  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(viii) Technical regulations and other technica l requirements; (a) Technical barriers to trade 
(TBT): paragraph 65, page 56:   
 
Question 31 
What is the Commission’s policy with respect to  designation of conformity assessment bodies in 
accordance with Article 6.1.2 of the TBT Agreement?   
 
Answer
 
Currently the EC has not entered any agreement a ccording to ART 6.1.2. and is not planning to 
conclude any in the near future.  
                                                     
 
51 OJEU L 220, 30.8.1993, p. 23. 
52 OJEU L218, 13.8.2008, p. 82.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 205 
 
 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(viii) Technical regulations and other technica l requirements; (a) Technical barriers to trade 
(TBT): paragraph 66, pages 56-57:   
 
The Secretariat report notes that "[m]arket surveillance is carried out by national authorities [...]. Under a safeguard clause procedure, the Co mmission may verify measures taken by national 
authorities that restrict the movement of "CE" market goods. For imports from third countries, checks 
of compliance with the product safety requirements are carried out by Memb er State authorities in 
charge of external border controls."  Question 32 
Could the EC describe what community wide effo rts are in place to promote greater harmonization 
among the different Member State regulatory regimes?   
Answer
 
As regards market surveillance, recently, a Comm unity Market Surveillan ce Framework has been 
adopted by Regulation (EC) 765/2008 of the Europe an Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 
setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of 
products53. Consequently Member States shall for 1.1.2010 organise and carried out market 
surveillance on a common basis. Cooperation at EU and international levels will also be organised. 
Regarding the application of the mutual recogniti on principles in those areas which are not 
harmonised by EC legislation, reference is made  to the answers given to questions 27 and 28. 
 Question 33 
Are the penalties for non-compliance the same throughout the EC?   
Answer
 
Consistent with the case-law of the European C ourt of Justice, penalties shall be "effective, 
proportionate, and dissuasive". It belongs to the Me mber States to set the type and level of penalties 
in light of these criteria and of their national legal system.    
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(viii) Technical regulations and other technica l requirements; (a) Technical barriers to trade 
(TBT): paragraph 67, page 57:   
 
Question 34 
Could the Commission elaborate on the policy governi ng the availability of published standards to the 
public?   
Answer
 
European Standards are available, in their nationa l implemented versions, to all stakeholders. Any 
standard can be ordered by the public, e.g; via th e web sites of the national and European Standards 
Organisations. The lists of European Standards suppo rting New Approach legislation are published 
in the Official Journal of the European Uni on, and made available freely on the European 
Commission’s web site. The European Commission, in its recent Comm unication to the European Parliament and the 
European Economic and Social Committee "Towards  an increased contribution from standardisation 
to innovation in Europe" (COM(2008) 133 final of 11 March 2008), invited the standards 
organisations to systematise the open and free pub lication of abstracts of European Standards 
without access restriction, and to reduce the cost of  standards, with the ultimate goal of providing 
free access to standards developed in support of EC legislation and policy. 
                                                     
 
53 OJEU L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 206  
 
 Question 35 
Does each of the three standard s bodies have their own policy?  
 
Answer
 
CEN, CENELEC and ETSI, as well as their na tional members, are independent and private 
organisations. One of their missions is to ensure th e dissemination of standards through appropriate 
channels, according to sectoral and national environments.  Question 36 
Are standards made available to the public at no cost?  
Answer
 
Whilst CEN and CENELEC standards need to be im plemented as national standards in all EU and 
EFTA countries, ETSI standards are directly avail able on ETSI’s web s ite. National standards 
organisations are responsible for the dissemina tion of standards via appropriate policies and 
processes, tailored to their domestic  market and environment. Standards may be sold individually, or 
in collections.  Generally, abstracts are available free of charge on the web sites of national standards organisations. 
 Question 37 
In what languages are the standards provided in?  
Answer
 
European Standards must be impl emented as national standards in all EU and EFTA countries. It 
belongs to the national standards or ganisations to publish in one of  the official languages of the ESO 
(English, French or German) or to translate into their national language(s). The European 
Commission promotes the translation of all European Standards s upporting New Approach 
legislation in all EU languages. The reference lists  of standards are published in all EU languages in 
the Official Journal of the European Union.  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(viii) Technical regulations and other technica l requirements; (a) Technical barriers to trade 
(TBT): paragraph 68, page 57:  
 
The Secretariat report notes that in July 2005, a new regulation was adopted to establish common 
rules and structures for accreditati on and market surveillance, and w ill enter into force in July, 2010. 
 Question 38 
Could the Commission describe how the new accredita tion policy is being implemented to date?  
 
Answer:
 
See reply to question 39 below.  
Question 39 What measures are in place to en sure that the competency of accreditation bodies among the newest 
Member States is established by July 1, 2010?  
Answer
 
Questions 38 and 39 are replied jointly as they relate to the same topic, i.e. the state of play of the 
implementation of a comprehensive legal framew ork for accreditation based on common principles 
for its operation and organisation as laid down at EC level in Regulation (EC) 765/2008 of the  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 207 
 
 
 European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July  2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation 
and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products54. 
 The process is well on track with a view to ensuri ng the common framework for accreditation is fully 
implemented by 1 January 2010.  
 Regulation 765/2008 provides for the recogniti on of EA (the European co-operation for 
accreditation) as support infrastructure at EC leve l to coordinate the implementation of the new 
accreditation framework. As part of this process, General Guidelines for th e Cooperation between the 
EA and the European Commission, EFTA and the co mpetent national authorities were signed on 
1
st April 2009. The Guidelines embody the political co mmitment of the above pa rties to the successful 
implementation of Regulation 765/2008. Th is document will be made public shortly. 
 In addition, a Framework Partn ership Agreement (FPA) between the European Commission and the 
EA is currently being negotiated. The FPA will set  out the common cooperation objectives and the 
legal, administrative and financial provisions relating to the Community financing that may be 
granted to the EA. This document will also be made public once finalised. 
 As regards implementation of the new common framew ork at national level, all Member States are in 
the process of adapting their national a ccreditation systems to the requirements of 
Regulation 765/2008. Implementation is particular ly challenging for those Member States which 
currently have more than one national accreditation body in place in view of the requirement that a 
single accreditation body should be appointed.   The competency of all accreditation bodies will be est ablished on the basis of the requirements set out 
in Article 8 of Regulation 765/2008. National accred itation bodies that demonstrate conformity with 
the criteria laid down in the relevant Europe an harmonised standards, the reference of which has 
been published in the Official Journal of the EU, by having successfully undergone peer evaluation 
organised by EA in accordance with Article 10 of Regulation 765/2008, will be presumed to fulfil the 
requirements laid down in Article 8.  
Finally, in order to do away with unnecessary  burdens, the European Commission is working 
together with all interested parties on a compro mise single-market friendly solution regarding the 
interpretation of the provisions on cross-border a ccreditation (Article 7 of Regulation 765/2008) in 
relation to the situation of multinational conform ity assessment bodies, i.e. conformity assessment 
bodies having their head office in one Member State but being also established and exercising their 
activity in another Member State by means of on e or more local entities su ch as subsidiaries, 
branches or agencies. The compromise soluti on will aim to avoid unnecessary duplication of 
accreditation assessments, whilst guaranteeing the fu ll respect and application of the fundamental 
principles of the European accreditation policy. As soon as an agreement with all interested parties is 
reached, the European Commission will issue a guidance document.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(viii) Technical regulations and other technica l requirements; (a) Technical barriers to trade 
(TBT): paragraph 69, page 57:   
 
The Secretariat report indicates that Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) are the only mechanism through which conformity assessments bodies (CABs) from third countries can participate in the EC’s 
conformity assessment activities.  
                                                     
 
54 OJEU L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 208  
 
 Question 40 
Under what conditions will results from thir d country CABs be recognized by the EC? 
 
Answer
 
European legislation currently in force (Regulatio n (EC) No 765/2008 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council) does not foresee the possibility of directly designating CABs established outside 
the territory of the European Union. The reason is  twofold: CABs designated to perform checks and 
issue certificates under one or seve ral European Directives can be subject to 1) checks in order to 
assess whether they have the necessary skills and comp etence in order to run these checks; 2) 
monitoring in order to ensure at any time their ongoing compliance with the legislation in force and, 
if the need arises, the possibility to a pply sanctions in case of non-compliance. 
 1) The assessment of the co mpetences of CABs it the responsibility of the 27 national 
accreditation authorities. They are the sole respons ible for designation of CABs within their 
respective territory. Unity of approach in the designation of CABs is guaranteed throughout the 
Union thanks to the coordination made by the Eu ropean Co-operation for Accreditation (EA) over the 
national accreditation authorities. EA ensures that th e same minimum requirements are applied for 
designating CABs in the EU, for instance through the establishment and promotion of a compulsory 
peer review among national accreditation authorities.   2) The monitoring of compliance by CABs is ensured by national authorities through entities 
performing tasks of public interest. They run ra ndom and ad-hoc checks, for instance through  
unannounced visits of the premises of CABs , and apply sanctions whenever they observe non 
compliance.  The European system works as a balance betw een ex-ante (accreditation) and ex-post (market 
surveillance) checks and it can only perform if cont rol and monitoring of the system is ensured. 
Designation of CABs outside the EU's territory would become problematic
 for ensuring compliance 
with point 1) above. Furthermore, it would make impossible  to ensure the application of effective 
market surveillance (point 2) above).  Taking the above into account, foreign CABs can mainly operate onto the European market through 
the conclusion of Mutual Recognition Agreements . Thanks to these, the EC counterpart to the 
agreement ensures the compliance with  the points explained above. Fu rther to this, foreign CABs can 
conclude private agreements with EU based CABs so to perform in a fo reign country the necessary 
checks which will then allow the Eur opean CAB to issue the certificate.  
Last, but not least, European legi slation makes a wide use of the Supplier's Declaration of Conformity 
for a major part of the products to be put on th e European market. According to this, no compulsory 
third party certification is needed prior to putting products to the market. Th is reduces enormously 
the need of recurring to CABs and, consequently, the need for foreign manu facturers to have their 
products tested by European (and any other) C ABs prior to the marketing of their products.  
 Question 41 
Can the EC confirm that CABs from third countri es are only able to participate in the EC’s 
conformity assessment activities if an MRA is in place? 
 
Answer
 
Foreign CABs can certainly participate in the EC's  conformity assessment activities if an MRA with 
the country they are established in has been conclude d. In addition, as explained in the answer to 
Question 40, there are several other possibilities for foreign CABs to participate in the conformity 
assessment activities under applicable EC product legi slation. First; foreign CAB's subsidiaries 
established in an EU Member State are eligible for designation as a Notified Body for the purpose of 
the EC "New Approach" legislation. Second, d esignated Notified Bodies can subcontract specific 
tasks connected with conformity assessment under pr ivate contractual agreements. This includes the 
possibility of subcontracting to foreign CABs and testing laboratories. Under these arrangements,  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 209 
 
 
 Notified Bodies must ensure that the subcontractor or subsidiary meets the requirements relating to 
Notified Bodies and retain full responsibility for th e tasks performed by subcontractors or 
subsidiaries, wherever they are established. In pr actice, wherever international private voluntary 
arrangements for the recognition of test results are in place, such as the IECEE CB scheme for 
electrical equipment or the IECEx scheme for equipment used in explosive atmospheres, such 
arrangements are widely used by EC Notified Bodies and provide a great potential for trade 
facilitation.  Question 42 
The EC now has more than a decade of experience w ith bilateral mutual recognition agreements with 
a large number of WTO Members.  
 
Answer
 
The EC currently has seven MRAs in force with Australia and New Zealand, Canada, Israel, Japan, 
Switzerland and United States of America. For more information please refer to the following 
webpage: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/tbt/mra.htm. 
 Question 43 
Has the Commission undertaken any studies on the impact of these agreements on reducing 
conformity assessment costs and facilitating trade?   Answer
 
Studies have been undertaken with respect to the MRAs with Australia and New Zealand. A similar 
study is under way with respect to the MRAs with Japan.  Additional details can be found at: http: //ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/tbt/mra.htm.
 
 
Question 44 Does the Commission have plans to  enter into any future MRAs? 
 
Answer
 
Currently the Commission does not have plans to enter any new MRAs.  
Part III. Trade Policies and practices by Meas ure: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(viii) technical regulations and other technical requirements; (a) Technical barriers to trade 
(TBT): paragraph 70, pages 57-58:  
The Secretariat report notes that on products no t subject to harmonized technical regulations, 
including various types of foodstuffs, the EC appli es the principle of mutual recognition for purposes 
of free movement of goods between Member States.  
Question 45 
Could the EC explain why importe d food products that have been assessed/designated as organic by 
the competent authority of a Member State, may re quire another similar asse ssment before the organic 
food can be imported into another Member State? 
 
Answer
 
Please see answer to question 46.  
The report also notes that Regulation 834/2007 on  organic production and labelling of organic 
products offers a variety of arrangements for im ports of organic products from third countries, 
supported by the detailed rules for im plementation of Regulation 1235/2008. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 210  
 
 Question 46 
Could the EC elaborate on the certification requirements of each consignment? 
Answer
 
Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2092/ 91 and its subsequent amendments are not anymore in force as 
they were, as from 1.1.2009, repealed by Council Regulation (EC) N.o 834/2007 and its implementing 
rules, i.e. Commission Regulations (EC) No. 889/2008 and No. 1235/2008. 
 Detailed rules for imports of organic products into the EU are laid down in Regulation 1235/2008. There is also a guideline document on imports of or ganic products into the EU with further details. 
Apart from the already existing list of equivalent co untries, the EU intends to established two lists of 
control bodies - one for equivalence and one for compliance. The deadline for the first round of 
applications of control bodies to be included in the equivalence list has been set for 31/10/2009. It is 
true that the control body has to, amongst other things, specify in the application to which organic 
standard it certifies. The list of control bodies for co mpliance will be established later on and there, 
the only possibility will be to certify to the EU organic standard (full compliance). 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(viii) Technical regulations and other technica l requirements; (a) Technical barriers to trade 
(TBT): paragraph 71, page 58:   
 
The Secretariat report notes that an enhanced frame work for mutual recognition will enter into force 
on May 13, 2009, with the aim of inter alia improving the internal movement of goods in 
non-harmonized areas.  
Question 47: 
Has the measure been notified to the WTO?   
Answer
 
Regulation No. 764/2008 does not lay down any tec hnical regulation or any conformity assessment 
procedure in the sense of the TBT Agreement.  This new regulation only establishes the procedural 
requirements to correctly apply th e principle of mutual recognition which derives from the case-law 
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and is one of the means of ensuring the 
free movement of goods within the internal market . Therefore the Regulation has not been notified to 
the WTO.  Question 48 
How will "actors" from third countries be notified of Member State decisions’ to restrict access to the 
market?  
 
Answer
 
From 13 May 2009 and according to Article 6(1) of the Mutual Recognition Regulation, any Member 
State has to send to the economic operator identified  a written notice of its intentions to deny the 
access to its market. Therefore, a ll "actors" (whether they are from third countries or from 
EU Member States) will be notified by written notice by the competent authority of the Member State 
which intends to ban the access to the market.    Question 49 
Will they be notified to the WTO TBT Committee?  
Answer
 
Decisions to deny access to the market will become  the exception and will be taken on a case by case 
basis.  These decisions are individual decisions addressed to the economic operator concerned in 
application of existing Member State legislation (i.e. already notified under the TBT Agreements if  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 211 
 
 
 applicable) and in accordance with the procedural requirements laid down in the Mutual Recognition 
Regulation. Such decisions do not therefore need to be notified un der the TBT Agreement. 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(viii) Technical regulations and other technica l requirements: (a) Technical barriers to trade 
(TBT): paragraph 72, page 58-59: 
 
The Secretariat report outlines the number of notific ations made by the EC and its Member States 
under the TBT Agreement. Canada is concerned with  the low volume of notifications of technical 
regulations made by the EC and the large volume of  notifications from its individual Members States, 
as is presented in Table III.7, especially given that in the Government report (WT/TPR/G/214, 
paragraph 2) the EC is described as "the largest actor in international trade, accounting for nearly a 
fifth of the global goods market and close to  a third of the global services exchange."  
We invite the EC to offer an explanation.  Answer
 
EC Member States are all sovereign States and determin e which legislation, and in particular which 
technical regulations and confor mity assessment procedure they  consider necessary to adopt. In 
certain cases the EC can adopt EC legislation la ying down technical regula tions and conformity 
assessment procedures in order to harmonise the different legislation of 27 Member States. In the 
"Better Regulation initiative" (Good Regulatory Pr actice) the Commission stressed the need to 
legislate only when necessary and to pay more atte ntion to the use of self- and co-regulation. 
The amount of notifications from Member States and the EC reflects this structure.  
 
Question 50 
Could the EC further explain how the authorities in Member States (e.g. Enquiry Points / Notification 
Authorities) monitor the creation or modification of TBT measures in the EC and the Member States 
in order to determine whether a WTO notification is  required under the transparency obligations of 
the TBT Agreement?  
Answer
 
As explained in the previous reply , Member States are all sovereign States and as such all Members 
of WTO. Member States therefore notify their te chnical regulations and conformity assessment 
procedures under the TBT Agreement, thus following  their own assessment. In particular, Member 
States judge for their own technical regulati ons and conformity assessment procedures if the 
measures have a significant impact on trade and if they need to be notified to WTO.  
With regard to notifications of EC legislation, it is the European Commission ensuring that technical 
regulations and conformity assessment procedu res proposed on EC level will be notified under the 
TBT Agreement if the conditions of the Agreement are met. 
 Question 51 
When a determination is made, what is the me chanism for EC-Member State collaboration for the 
preparation of notifications?  
 
Answer
 
As explained in the previous rep ly, Member States are responsible fo r notifying their own technical 
regulations and conformity assessment proce dure under the TBT Agreement. In addition, when 
notifying technical regulations or  conformity assessment proce dures under the existing internal 
notification procedure to the European Commission,  they inform the Commission if they consider that 
the conditions for a notification under the TBT Ag reement are met and therefore intend to notify 
under the TBT Agreement.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 212  
 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(viii) Technical regulations and other technica l requirements; (a) Technical barriers to trade 
(TBT): paragraph 73-74 , page 58-59:   
 The Secretariat reports notes that a new regime fo r the registration, evaluation, authorization and 
restriction of chemicals (REACH regulation)  entered into force on June 1, 2007.  
 
Question 52 
Could the Commission provide more information on what measures are being taken to protect 
confidential business information under REACH?  
 
Answer
 
The protection of confidential information was a key concern during the legisl ative process leading to 
the adoption of REACH.  Many features of the Re gulation were specifically designed to address this 
concern.  Among others, we would note: 
 
• Possibility for opting out from the joint subm ission when submitting the information jointly 
would lead to disclosure of information that  the registrant considers to be commercially 
sensitive and is likely to cause him substantial commercial detriment; 
• Possibility for registrant to ask the Agency not  to make certain information (among the type 
of information that is subject to general pub lication in ECHA’s website in accordance with 
Article 119(2) of the Regulation) publically available if he jus tifies that publication could be 
harmful for his or any other concerned party’s commercial interest; 
• Possibility for registrants to appoint a third par ty representative with a view to keeping their 
identity confidential in the context  of registration proceedings; and 
• Duty for ECHA and the competent authorities of Member States to keep confidential all 
information received in the context of a subm ission of an application for an exemption from 
registration for product and process orientated research and development. 
 
Question 53 
Could the Commission provide information on wh at measures will be in place to ensure the 
transparency, oversight and peer review of data submitted by industry under REACH?   
 
Answer  
The quality and adequacy of the information submitted by registrants is subject to review by ECHA in 
the context of the evaluation of the dossier.  An appeal may be brought against decisions taken by 
ECHA in this context.     Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(viii) Technical regulations and other technica l requirements; (a) Technical barriers to trade 
(TBT): paragraph 76, page 60:   
 
The Secretariat report notes that the EC is ne gotiating or preparing to negotiate a number of 
agreements on conformity assessment and acceptance of  industrial products (ACAA) with certain 
countries in the EC neighbourhood.   Question 54 
Could the Commission elaborate on the EC policy with respect to acceptance of conformity 
assessment results from countries outside the "European neighbourhood"?   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 213 
 
 
 Answer  
The EU relies to a substantial extent on Supplier's Declaration of Conformity for access to its market, 
with the use of obligatory conformity assessment be ing limited to a small number of products. In those 
areas, as mentioned in the Secretariat report, the Community has negotiated (or is in the process of 
negotiating) Agreements on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial Products (ACAAs), 
which will provide for the transposition of the EC acquis in certain sectors and the acceptance of 
conformity assessment results under it, where appropr iate. Conclusion of an ACAA would require not 
only transposition of the technical requirements for pr oducts, but also the setting up of a conformity 
assessment infrastructure comparable to that of the EC. Please see also the answer to questions 40, 
41 and 44. 
An ACAA covers industrial products (mentioned in the sectoral annexes defining the product 
coverage of the sectors within scope) irrespective of their origin. Consequently, a product originating 
in a third country placed  on the market of one party after it has  undergone the applicable conformity 
assessment procedures or administr ative checks (depending on the product) should be placed freely 
on the market of the other party. But neither party s hall be obliged to accept products on its market 
(without re-testing or checking) that have been lawfu lly placed on the market of the other party as a 
consequence of a mutual recognition agreem ent between a party and a third country. 
 
Question 55 
Will acceptance be based on participation in the IL AC and IAF mutual recognition arrangements?  
 Answer
 
Accreditation is the preferred method of determining t hat a CAB within the EC or in a country having 
concluded an ACAA with the EC (for the sectors co ncerned) meets the legal requirements to carry out 
a specific conformity assessment activity.  C andidate CABs in ACAA partner countries could be 
accredited either by their own national accreditation body or by the accreditation body of an EU 
Member State.  
 National accreditation bodies of the EU Member Stat es should be part of the European Co-operation 
for Accreditation (EA) while the national accredita tion bodies of ACAA partner countries should have 
signed a bilateral agreement with EA for joining EA 's multilateral agreements for the accreditation of 
laboratories and certification bodies. EA only accepts as candidate partner countries to a bilateral 
agreement those that are willing to sign corresponding ILAC/IAF agreements. 
 Accreditation by an accreditation body outside the EEA or an ACAA country does not confer any 
specific additional rights per se regarding the a cceptance of a CAB as a notified body under EC 
product legislation or an ACAA. Reference is made to  the answer given to Questions 40 and 41 above 
regarding the conditions under whic h third countries CABs can partic ipate in conformity assessment 
activities in the EC. 
 
Part III. Trade policies and practices by measure;  (2) Measures directly affecting imports; (viii) 
Technical regulations and other technical require ments; (b) Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS): 
paragraph 78, page 60: 
 With respect to the EC chosen level of SPS prot ection as outlined in Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002. 
 
Question 56 
Does the EC adopt a ‘high’ level of protection to  each measure concerning food items consumed by 
humans as well as by animals?  
 
Answer
 
Yes, as it is written in Article 5 of Reg. 178/2008, "Fo od law shall pursue one or more of the general 
objectives of a high level of protection of human life and health and the protection of consumers' WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 214  
 
 interests, including fair practices in food trade, taking account of, where appropriate, the protection 
of animal health and welfare, plant health and the environment".  Question 57 
Could the EC explain what it means by ‘high’ level of protection?    
Answer
 
Article 2 (1) of the SPS Agreement recognizes that  the Members have the right to adopt the SPS 
measures to protect the health and the life of the people and animals or to preserve vegetables, 
provided that such measures are not a hidden r estriction to trade. Furthermore Article 3 (3) 
establishes that the Members will be able to establis h or keep health or phytosanitary measures that 
represent a level of health or phytosanitary protectio n higher than the one that would be obtained by 
measures based on the regulations, directives or pertinent international recommendations, if a 
scientific justification exists or if it is a consequence of the level of health or phytosanitary protection 
that the Member that considers appropriate. A scientific justification is deemed to exist if, on the basis 
of an examination and evaluation of the scientific information available in compliance with the 
pertinent measures of this Ag reement, a Member determines that the regulations, directives or 
pertinent international recommendations are not sufficient to obtain th eir suitable level of health or 
phytosanitary protection. The EC provides all the rel iable information about the scientific bases of the 
risk analysis in their notifications. In the framewo rk of the SPS Agreement no other criterion is used. 
 
Question 58 How does the EC propose other countries meet its chosen  "high2 level of protection if the EC’s level 
of protection goes beyond harmonized internationa l standards with respect to food safety?  
 
Answer
 
As mentioned in Question 57, Article 2 (1) of  the SPS Agreement recognizes that the Members have 
right to adopt the SPS measures to protect the heal th and the life of the people and animals or to 
preserve vegetables, provided that such measures are not a hidden restriction to trade. The EC 
recognize for WTO Members the same right to estab lish its own appropriate level of health or 
phytosanitary protection higher than the one that would be obtained by measures based on the 
regulations, directives or pertinent internationa l recommendations, if a scientific justification exists. 
The EC expect the other WTO members will provid e with the necessary information about the 
scientific bases of the analysis of risk of all its measures.  Question 59 
Does the EC have specific documents that explain and identify the steps for its risk assessments?  
 
Answer
 
No. The different agencies working in scientific a ssessments have their own guidelines for risk 
assessment in line with the principles55 developed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. For 
example, the European Food Safety Authority ( EFSA) has developed a comprehensive body of good 
risk assessment practices to gu ide its Scientific Panel and Committee experts to ensure EFSA 
opinions respect the highest scientific standards "Good Risk Assessment Practice". 
 Question 60 
If yes, could the EC provide a copy of the documen t(s) that would describe what the EC considers 
relevant for the different parts of its risk assessments?  
 
                                                     
 
55 Working principles for risk analysis for Food Safety for application by governments 
CAC/GL 62-2007.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 215 
 
 
 Answer  
---.  
Question 61 
Could the EC please explain how international risk assessments carried out by JECFA and other countries measures are factored into its risk assessments? 
 
Answer
 
The EC always take into account the opinion and work of JEFCA and other international scientific 
bodies for the preparation of its legislation. At so me occasions, it requests its own scientific body, i.e. 
the EFSA, to review the risk assess ments provided by international  bodies to ensure they are fully 
applicable to the European envir onment and population. In addition, as an active partner, the EC 
participate fully in the works undertaken by these international bodies. Th e EC also take into 
consideration any reliable scientific information coming from other countries.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measu re: (2) Measures directly affecting imports; 
(viii) Technical regulations and other technical requirements; (b) Sanitary and phytosanitary 
(SPS): paragraph 78, page 60: 
 
We appreciate that EC legislation on SPS issues is  implemented by Member States in coordination 
with the Commission.  
 
Question 62 
Could the EC explain how it is meeting its obligat ion under Article 13 of the SPS Agreement in the 
case where measures implemented by Member States are not in line with EC’s harmonized approach 
and considered inconsistent with  provisions of the Agreement? 
 
Answer
 
There are comprehensive reports available on th e transposition, implemen tation and enforcement 
(TIE) of Community law in the Member States. A ll Community legislation and enforcement measures 
are drawn up in very close co-operation with the Member States and generally require their 
agreement. This includes very regular meetings to o versee this process. This is all carried out in a 
very transparent manner with the age ndas and reports of meetings pub licly available on the internet. 
Community legislation as a general rule does establish target dates for the transposition and 
implementation of measures. The SPS Agreement is  part of the "acquis communitaire". Each EC 
Member State is responsible for the implementation of Community law within its own legal system. 
Under the Treaties (Article 226 of the EC Treaty ), the Commission of the European Communities is 
responsible for ensuring that Community law is correctly applied. 
Consequently, when a Member State fails to comp ly with Community law, the Commission has powers 
of its own to try to bring the infringement to  an end and, where necessary, may refer the case to the 
European Court of Justice. The Commission ta kes whatever action it deems appropriate in response 
to either a complaint or indications of infringe ments which it detects itself. Non-compliance means 
failure by a Member State to fulfil its obligations under Community law. 
See link http://ec.europa.eu/community_law /infringements/infringements_en.htm  
 
Part III. Trade policies and practices by measure:  (2) Measures directly affecting imports; (viii) 
Technical regulations and other technical require ments; (b) Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS): 
paragraph 83, pages 61-62: 
 
Question 63 
With respect to Article 3.1 of Regulation 853/2004 , antimicrobial treatment being used on food of 
animal origin is prohibited.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 216  
 
 Answer
 
Yes.  Question 64 
Could the EC elaborate on what "antimicrobial treatment" means and how these treatments are applied to food of animal origin?  
 
Answer
 
Only potable water is currently a llowed for the decontamination of product of animal origin in EU. 
 
Question 65  
Please provide the text of any specific measure(s) that constitute this ban.  Could the EC elaborate on 
the scientific justification for prohibiting the use of antimicrobial treatments on food?   
Answer
 
Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004 and Ar ticle 6 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 are the 
relevant references to a risk - based approach.   When drafting its proposal with a view to authoris ing the four substances to be used for the 
decontamination of poultry carcases, the EC considered  taking into account all the aspects of safety 
and efficacy of such substances. 
In the course of the inter service EC consultation the issues of the environmental impact and of the 
antimicrobial resistance were raised, the Scie ntific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks 
(SCHER) and the Scientific Committee on Emergi ng and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) 
were requested to evaluate these risks related to environmental impacts and EFSA was requested to 
evaluate these risks with a view to food safety.  
The proposal drafted by the Commission Services with a view to authorising the four substances to be 
used for the decontamination of poultry ca rcases was rejected by 26 Member States and one 
abstention in the Council on 18 December 2008 - for more details see the Council Decision of 18 
December rejecting the Commission proposal on  AMT - Official Journal on 13/02/2009) 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU riServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:042: 0013:0015:EN:PDF). 
 
The scientific justification is following:  
On 6 March 2008, the EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) in its scientific opinion 
concluded that, despite a long history of use, no published data exist to indicate that the four 
substances initially proposed by the European Commi ssion, within the proposed conditions of use, 
will lead to increased bacterial tol erance to these substances or to in creased resistance to therapeutic 
antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents. These uncertainties lead EFSA to encourage further 
research on the likelihood of an increase in bacterial tolerance to these types of substances, and the 
possibility of their resistance to therapeutic  antibiotics and other antimicrobial agents. 
The Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newl y Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) and the 
Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks (SCHER) in their joint opinion of 18 
March-2 April 2008 stated:" In general, all use of  antimicrobial chemicals has eventually led to the 
development of acquired resistance. A large number of different substances with antimicrobial 
activity are used in the production of food animals . This includes metal and disinfectants in the 
primary production and a large number of disinfect ants and preservatives during slaughter or in the 
final food product. This usage might select for intrinsically resistant pathogens or co-select for acquired resistance to antibiotics used for therapy. There is curren tly insufficient knowledge on the 
potential negative effects of using the different biocides."  
 In response to the mandate of the Commission on th e four substances the Committee concluded that:  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 217 
 
 
 • There is a risk for the environment. However,  the risk can be prevented by appropriate 
effluent treatment in a waste treatment plant; 
• In relation to the potentia l residues in the carcases a low environmental risk has been 
estimated; 
• For antimicrobial resistance th ere is insufficient data to  determine whether these 
4 chemicals may cause cross-resi stance to antibiotics or the selection of specific microbial 
groups associated to resistance. 
 
Question 66 
Has the EC considered alternatives to the outri ght prohibition on the use of these antimicrobial 
treatments?  
Answer
 
On 16 February 2009, the Commission Statement on the use of steam as an alternative method for the 
decontamination of carcases has been accepted by  the Member States in the relevant standing 
committee.  Part III. Trade Policies and practices by Measu re: (2) Measures directly affecting imports; 
(viii) technical regulations and other technical requirements; (b) Sanita ry and phytosanitary 
(SPS): paragraph 89, page 64:  
With respect to EC regulation 1829/2003 and the approval process for genetically modified organisms 
(GMOs), the Secretariat report notes that on the ba sis of the opinion of th e European Food Safety 
Authority (EFSA) and other "legitimate factors", the Commission should submit a proposal granting 
or rejecting the authorization to the Standi ng Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health 
(SCoFCAH) within three months.  
Question 67 
Could the EC elaborate on what "other legitimate factors" are considered in its proposal to 
SCoFCAH? 
 
Answer
 
There are circumstances where scientific risk assessm ent alone cannot provide all the information on 
which a risk management decision can be based. U nder these circumstances, other legitimate factors 
that should be taken into account include but are not limited to societal, economic, traditional, ethical 
and environmental factors and the feasibility of c ontrols (see recital 19 of Regulation (EC) 
No. 178/2002).  The Secretariat report notes that there appear to be  considerable delays in reaching final decisions 
on GMO approvals, but that according to the Commission the EC is looking for technical solutions that would limit trade disruption due to such a time lag. 
 
Question 68 
Could the EC elaborate on what technica l solutions are being considered?   
 
Answer
 
As a result of the College debate of 7 May 2008, the Commission has instructed its services to find a 
technical solution for the issue of  low level presence of non-appro ved GMOs in feed and foodstuffs 
within the existing legislative framework. One such possible solution is to propose a harmoni sed control measure to Member States within the 
current legal framework which would provide great er certainty for operators by  defining the criteria 
for laboratories performing official control analysis for GMOs. The proposal would address the 
technical constraints that are intrinsically linked  with the method of analysis for GMOs by defining WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 218  
 
 the lowest limit at which one can ensure that the co ntrols, when carried out under optimal conditions 
(using appropriate sampling protocols and validated  analytical methods in accredited laboratories) 
will be sufficiently robust. This level corresponds to the limit of quantification of 0.1% set by the 
Community Reference Laboratory in its validation tr ials which is part of th e authorisation procedure 
under Regulation (EC) No. 1829/2003. 
 
Question 69 
Could the EC indicate when it anticipates such a technical solution might be put in place? 
 
Answer
 
The above proposed measure is currently being examined and a decision on the best way forward 
could be taken in the next weeks/months. The measures in question will have to be analysed and 
supported by the Member Stat es and the European Parliament. 
 Part III. Trade Policies and practices by Measu re: (2) Measures directly affecting imports: 
(viii) technical regulations and other technical requirements: (b) Sanita ry and phytosanitary 
(SPS): paragraph 90, page 64: 
 
The Secretariat report notes that in the EC, conventio nal seeds must be labelled if they contain GMOs, 
with the establishment of a threshold level pending.   Question 70 
Could the EC indicate when such a threshold level for GMOs will be set, and provide an indication of 
where it is in the process?   
Answer
 
The Commission is currently finalising its pro cedures on the Impact Assessment of the different 
threshold options, which will be fo llowed by a legislative proposal. 
 Question 71 
Could the EC provide additional information on the parameters of such a threshold? 
 Answer  
The Commission is currently finalising its procedures on the Impact Assessment of the different 
threshold options, which will be followed by a legislative proposal.  
Question 72 
Could the EC please clarify the legitimate objective,  under Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement, which 
the EC seeks to achieve through the mandatory labelling of GMOs?  
Answer
 
The legislation on labelling has b een notified both to the TBT and SP S Agreement before its adoption. 
 
Question 73  
Could the EC please provide available scientific and technical information that demonstrates how this 
measure addresses this objective?   
Answer
 
See above. Please note that the Commission has recently launched an evaluation process of the 
legislative framework on GMOs, which will assess whet her the objectives of the legislation have been 
met. This evaluation will be completed with 12 months.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 219 
 
 
 Part III. Trade Policies and practices by Meas ure: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
viii) Technical regulations and other technical requirements: (b) Sanitary and phytosanitary 
(SPS): paragraph 93, page 65:  
Canada is concerned with the low volume of rout ine SPS notifications issued by the EC and the 
Member States.  
 
Question 74 
Could the EC explain how it fulfills its obligation under Article 13 of the SPS Agreement by ensuring 
that Member States do meet the transparency obligat ions under the agreement through their respective 
notification procedures?  
 
Answer
 
See above, question 62, on infringement procedures.  
Question 75 Could the EC explain how the authorities in Memb er States (e.g. Enquiry Points / Notification 
Authorities) monitor the creation or modification of SPS measures in the EC and the Member State (MS) in order to determine whether a WTO notifica tion is required under the transparency obligations 
of the SPS Agreement?  Answer
 
The Directive 98/34/EC56 (see the full title in footnote) sets up a procedure which imposes an 
obligation upon the Member States to notify to th e Commission and to each other all the draft 
technical regulations concerning products before they are adopted in national law. Such procedure 
aims at providing transparency and control with reg ard to those regulations. However, as external 
trade issues are to a large extent harmonized at the EC  level, including in the field of SPS, it is very 
unusual for problems of MS compliance with th eir WTO/SPS Agreement obligations to arise. 
 Question 76 
Could the EC share any mechanism that may exist for EC-Member State collaboration on the 
determination of MS measures to notify, as well as on the preparation of MS notifications?  
 
Answer
 
The communication G/SPS/GEN/456 (5 December 2003), page 3, paragraph A.3 describes the "Procedure for the notification of EC Member St ates' proposals" and the flow-chart 1 and 2. 
 
Question 77 Footnote 125, states that, "[…] countries have complained about the EC decision to notify proposed 
changes to the novel foods regulation as a TBT measur e, rather than as an SPS measure, stressing the 
underlying food safety objective of the novel foods regulation". How will the EC address concerns raised by some  WTO Members that novel food regulations should 
be notified as an SPS measure?    Answer
 
As stated in communication G/SPS/GEN/699 (8 Ju ne 2006) "Reply of the European Communities to 
the communication from Peru concerning Regulation 258/97 on Novel Foods",  paragraph 6 " ... the 
European Communities believes the scope of this legisl ation falls mostly within the scope of the WTO 
                                                      
56 Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a 
procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations [OJ L 204, 
21.7.1998, p. 37–48]. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 220  
 
 Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (the TBT Agreement), together with much food and drink 
legislation that aims at a clear product identification and labelling; ...". 
 
Question 78 
How will the EC address the SPS committee’s recomme ndation that a regulati on containing both SPS 
and TBT elements should be notified und er both the SPS and TBT Agreements? 
 
Answer
 
The EC has notified to both (SPS and TBT) at seve ral occasions and will continue to do so when 
necessary and appropriate. 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(ix) Government Procurement:  paragraph 95, page 65:  
 
The Secretariat's Report states that, "The EC public  procurement regime aims to increase competition 
and transparency ...". 
 
Question 79 
Could the EC provide information on efforts to harmonize green public procurement policies among 
the Member States, and promote non-discriminatory treatment of internationally recognized certification systems, specifically in the area of sustainable forest management? 
 
Answer
 
Green Public Procurement is only a volunt ary policy on which the European Commission has 
provided guidance for contracting authorities inter alia in its Communication "Public Procurement 
for a Better Environment", adopted in July 2008. This Communication is accompanied by a web-
based toolkit which gives practical examples of criteria which could be included in a tender document 
when procuring specific products which have b een identified as most suitable for greening. 
Nevertheless, the purchase or otherwise of su stainable goods, works and services remains an option 
for contracting authorities as long as it is carrie d out in full respect of the Public Procurement 
Directives and the principles of equality, transparency and non-discrimination.  
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(ix) Government Procurement:  paragraph 97, page 66:  
 
The Secretariat's Report states that , "the directives apply to procurement above specified thresholds 
and that such thresholds are similar to those submitted by the EC under its GPA commitments." 
 
Question 80 
Could the EC clarify if there is a difference in the thresholds stated in the directives and those 
submitted by the EC in the GPA, and if so identify the difference?   
Answer
 
The thresholds specified in Directives 2004/17/EC  and 2004/18/EC as the same under the EC's 
commitments in the GPA. Please refer to table III.9 in the Secretariat's report.  
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(ix) Government Procurement:  paragraph 97, page 66:  
 The Secretariat's Report states that, "Procurement below these thresholds is regulated by national 
legislation, however it must follow the basic pr inciples of the EC Treaty (transparency, non-
discrimination, and equal treatment)."    WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 221 
 
 
 Question 81 
Could the EC confirm if foreign suppliers ar e permitted to compete on procurement below the 
thresholds? 
 
Answer  
Suppliers from third countries have the right to participate and are granted national treatment in EU 
tendering procedures if an international agreement c oncluded by the EU in the field of public 
procurement grants them the right to do so (GPA or  bilateral agreements with  the EU). In case there 
is no such an agreement or the agreement does not apply to the procurement in question, suppliers 
from third countries have no legal right to partic ipate. Usually, the agreements on international 
procurement concluded by the EU co ver procurement above the GPA thresholds. 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(ix) Government Procurement:  paragraph 98, page 66:  
 
The Secretariat's Report states that "...open, rest ricted, negotiated (with/without prior notice), and 
competitive dialogue procedures may be used."   
Question 82 
Could the EC confirm if restricted tendering is the same as selective tendering?   
Answer
 
Yes, it is the EC terminology used in the procurement directives.  Question 83  
Could the EC explain how competitive dialogue is carried out? 
 Answer
 
The competitive dialogue has the characteristic s of both selective tendering and of negotiation 
(restricted procedure with negotiated procedure w ith publication in the EU directives terminology). 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(ix) Government Procurement: Table III.9, footnote c, page 67:  
 Question 84 
Could the EC explain footnote c, particul arly the reference to the buyer profile? 
 Answer
 
Footnote c) refers to the obligation foreseen unde r the EU directives of publication of a prior 
information notice (a notice of planned procurem ent in the GPA terminology) where the estimated 
total value of the contract or th e framework agreements intended for award by a contracting authority 
over the following 12 months is equal to or higher than €750,000. Cont racting authorities are 
encouraged to publish this notice on an Internet webs ite maintained by the contracting authority in 
question ("the buyer's profile"). The notice shall also  be sent to Publication Office for publication on 
the Official Journal of the European Union. Th e buyer profile may also include information on 
ongoing invitations to tender, scheduled purchases, contracts concluded, procedures cancelled and 
any useful general information, such as the contact details of the contracting authority. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 222  
 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(ix) Government Procurement: paragraphs 95 and 99, pages 65 and 67:  
The Secretariat's Report states that, "In 2006, public  procurement in the EC corresponded to 16% of 
EC GDP." In paragraph 99, the Secretariat's Repor t further states: "During 2004-2006, procurement 
published in the Official Journal represented between 2.7% and 3.3% of GDP." 
 
Question 85 
Could the EC provide the total value of public proc urement covered by its Directives as a percentage 
of GDP? 
 
Answer
 
The procurement opportunities published in the Offic ial Journal of the European Union correspond to 
the procurement covered by the EU di rectives. Therefore, as indicated in  the report, the total value of 
procurement covered by the EU directives amount ed to 3,28% of the EU GDP in 2006. 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(ix) Government Procurement:  paragraph 100, page 67: 
 
The Secretariat's Report states that, "The Commission has made efforts to increase the publication rate 
of contract award notices..." 
 
Question 86 
Could the EC please explain under what circumstances contract awards do not have to be published?  
 
Answer  
The EU directives provide that contracting authorit ies which have awarded a contract shall send a 
notice on the results of the award procedure no later than 48 days after the award of the contract or 
the conclusion of the framework agreement. The EU directives do not foresee any specific exception 
to this obligation.   Question 87  
Could the EC elaborate on what efforts it is making to increase the publication rate of contract award 
notices?  
Answer
 
The volume of procurement advertised in the Officia l Journal of the EU has almost tripled since 1993. 
In 1994, it amounted to 1,31% of EU GDP, and in 2006 to 3,28% of EU GDP. As far as contract 
award notices are concerned, the European Commissi on has set up an automatic system of reminders 
to EU contracting authorities so as to ensu re full compliance with the relevant publication 
obligations. In 2008, 85% of the notices of intend ed procurement were followed by a contract award 
notice.   
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(ix) Government Procurement: paragraph 102, pages 68-69:  
The Secretariat's Report states that, "Public procurement below the thresholds of the procurement 
directives, which constitutes the majority of the contracts, falls under the competence of Member 
States. Below the thresholds there is no obliga tion for procuring authorities to follow the rules 
stipulated in the EC directives."   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 223 
 
 
 Question 88 
Does the EC and its Member States have plans to in crease the amount of public procurement that fall 
under the EC directives?   
Answer
 
The obligations stipulated by the EU directives  govern procurement above a certain value where the 
EU considers that procurement above these thres holds triggers cross-border interest. Therefore 
procurement opportunities above a certain threshold must be advertised EU wide and must follow 
uniform procedure. The procuremen t below the thresholds is of course open to all EU undertakings 
but it does not need to follow the detailed rules of  the directives (publication). Currently the EU does 
not foresee to make any changes in the thresholds as they correspond to the EU GPA commitments. 
 Question 89  
Given the amount of procurement that falls under the competence of Member States, could the EC 
please provide electronic links, or a listing, of the procurement measures followed by each Member 
State? 
 
Answer
 
The most comprehensive website s with information on procurement measures followed by EU 
Member States (and also some other European countries) are:  http://www.publicprocurementnetwork.org 
http://ted.europa.eu 
http://simap.europa.eu/index_en.html  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(ix) Government Procurement:  paragraph 103, page 69: 
 
Question 90 
Could the EC please provide electronic links to each Members national remedies and review systems? 
 
Answer
 
Please refer to the answer given to question 89. 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(ix) Government Procurement:  paragraph 104, page 69: 
 
The Secretariat's report states that, "It requires public authorities to observe a minimum "standstill period" of ten calendar days before concluding a public contract, thus providing the opportunity for 
rejected bidders to start an effective review procedure."   
Question 91 
Could the EC elaborate on the timing of the standstill pe riod in relation to the publication of a contract 
award notice? 
 
Answer
 
According to the Directive, contracting authorities must wait for at least 10 days after deciding who 
has won the public contract before the contract c an actually be signed. This "standstill period" is 
designed to give bidders time to examine the deci sion and to assess whether it is appropriate to 
initiate a review procedure. This means that a c ontract award notice cannot be published before the 
delay of the standstill period has expired.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 224  
 
 Question 92 
If the standstill period occurs before the publication of the contract award notice, how and when are 
bidders informed that thei r bid has been rejected?  
 
Answer
 
The contract award notice shall not be mistaken for the decision to award. The EU directives stipulate 
that contracting authorities are obliged to inform  candidates of decisions reached concerning the 
award of the contract. The standstill period runs from this moment.  Question 93 
Do bidders still have an opportunity to start a re view procedure after the "standstill period"? More 
specifically, can only rejected bidders use the revi ew procedure or can any potential supplier have 
access to such recourse?  
Answer
 
Under the existing Remedies Directives, actions can be brought either before the contract following 
the procurement procedure is si gned - pre-contractual remedies - or after the signature of the 
contract - post-contractual remedies - mainly in th e form of applications for damages, although in 
some Member States it is possible to have an unlawful decision set aside after contract conclusion. In 
practice, the bidders struggled to make use of th e pre-contractual remedies as the contracting 
authorities proceeded to signature of the contract  fairly quickly after the decision to award. 
Therefore, Directive 2007/66/EC has introduced a mandatory "standstill period" between the 
communication of the award decision to bidders and th e conclusion of the contract. This provision 
provides aggrieved bidders with an opportunity to seek quick and effective relief, including interim 
relief, at the pre-contractual stage where violations can still be corrected. Under the remedies directives, the review must be  available to "any pers on having or having had an 
interest in obtaining a particular public supply or public works contract and who has been or risks 
being harmed by an alleged infringement".  Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(ix) Government Procurement: footnote 152, paragraph 105, pages 70-71:  
The Secretariat's report, footnote 152 states that , "The communication is a non-legislative measure 
and does not modify the existing legal framework; it only concerns defence procurement by national 
authorities in the EC, and does not d eal with defence contracts with th ird countries (which continue to 
be governed by the WTO Governme nt Procurement Agreement)."  
 Question 94 
Could the EC clarify if the communication applies to defence procurement by national authorities that 
are covered by the WTO Government Procurement Agreement?  
Answer
 
In its Communication, the European Commission has  provided Member States with guidelines on 
when defence contracts can be exempt from EU ru les requiring competitive bidding. Article 296 of the 
EC Treaty gives Member States the possibility to derogate from Internal Market rules on public 
procurement when this is necessa ry for the protection of their 'essential security interests'. The 
Interpretative Communication aims to prevent possible misinterpretation and misuse of the 
Article 296 exemption in the field of defence procur ement. In particular, it explains the principles of 
the exemption, and clarifies the conditions for its use in the light of European Court of Justice case 
law.  The provisions of article 296 relate to simila r issues as article XXIII.1 of the GPA but its scope 
is narrower. This means that the Communication is of interest to the contracting authorities 
mentioned in the question. However, it has no im pact on the EU's commitments under the GPA as it 
concerns procurement which is exempt from it.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 225 
 
 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(ix) Government Procurement:  paragraph 106, page 70: 
 
The Secretariat's report states that, "In the domain of public procurement, the Commission referred (in 
March 2007) seven Member States to the Europe an Court of Justice over their continued non-
communication of national measures implem enting Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC." 
 
Question 95 
Could the EC advise if such national measures have since been communicated and where such 
measures are published? 
 
Answer  
Following the referral to the Court of Justi ce, six Member States have communicated the 
transposition measures which are now part of the nat ional legal order and published in their national 
gazette. The quality and correctness of the measur es and their correct implementation is now being 
reviewed by the European Commission. 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measur e: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; 
(ix) Government procurement:  paragraph 106, page 70: 
 
The Secretariat's report states that, "Public procur ement directives were transposed in all but one 
Member State as at 13 May 2008." 
 
Question 96 
Could the EC please confirm if this Member State has since transposed the public procurement 
directives and where such transposition can be found? 
 
Answer
 
This Member State has not yet trans posed the EU procurement directives. 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (4) Measures Affecting Production and 
Trade; (iv) Intellectual property rights; (a) I ndustrial property; Trade marks: paragraph 168, 
page 86:  
The Secretariat report states that, "Registration may be refused mainly because the sign does not 
conform to the definition of a protectable trade mark  but also because, inter alia, the sign is against 
public policy, contrary to principles of morality, deceives the public, and/or contains a geographical 
indication."   
 
Question 97 
Could the EC explain what happens if there is eviden ce that the trade mark h as been in use before the 
registration of the geographical indication?  Answer
 
The only way to adquire full rights over a Community  trade mark is by registering it, previous use 
being immaterial.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 226  
 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (4) Measures Affecting Production and 
Trade; (iv) Intellectual property rights; (a) Industrial property; Patents: paragraph 180, 
page 88:  
The Secretariat’s report noted that, "term of the Europ ean patent is 20 years from the date of filing of 
the application, and can be extended throu gh the supplementary protection certificate for 
pharmaceutical or plant protection products for a period not exceeding five years".   
Question 98 
Could the EC please explain in further detail under what conditions supplementary protection would 
be granted for pharmaceutical products? 
 
Answer
 
The supplementary protection certificates (SPCs) for medicinal products were created by Council 
Regulation (EEC) No. 1768/92 of 18 June 1992. The conditions for granting an SPC are outlined by 
article 3 of this Regulation. In other words, the pr oduct must be protected by a basic patent in force 
and have received a valid authorisation to place the product on the market. It must also not be the 
subject of a previous SPC, and the authorisation must be the first authorisation to place the product on the market as a medicinal product in the Europe an Economic Area. Whether or not an SPC can be 
granted, and its duration will depend on the date of  this first marketing authorisation and the filing 
date of the patent application. 
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (4) Measures Affecting Production and 
Trade; (iv) Intellectual Property Rights; (c) Geogr aphical indications: paragraph 195, page 92: 
 
The Secretariat report notes that, "The Commission is the final arbiter in case of failure of a conciliation procedure between parties." 
 
Question 99 
Could the EC inform Canada on what basis the fi nal decision would be rendered by the Commission 
in such a case?  Answer
 
According to Art. 7 of Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, if no agreement is reached, the Commission 
takes a decision in accordance with the Committee procedure referred to  in Art. 15(2), having regard 
to fair and traditional usage and the actual likelihood of confusion.  
 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (4) Measures Affecting Production and 
Trade; (iv) Intellectual property rights; (c) Geographical indications: paragraph 195, page 92:  
The Secretariat report states that, "There are two thir d-country names in the wines and spirits register: 
Vale dos Vinhedos (Brazil) and Na pa Valley (the United States)." 
 Question 100 
Could the EC inform Canada of any other third-c ountry names that are in the application process? 
 
Answer
 
As far as Regulation (EC) No 510/2006 is concern ed, the pending applications for "third country 
names" are the following: Gruyère, Dongshan Bai Lu Sun, Guanxi Mi You, Jinxiang Da Suan, Lixian 
Ma Shan Yao, Longjing Cha, Longkou Fen Si, Pinggu Da Tao, Shaanxi Ping Guo, Yancheng Long Xia, Zhenjiang Xiang Cu, Darjeeling, Kangra Tea, Thung Kula Rong Hai Thai Hom Mali Rice.  There has been no application from th ird countries for wines or spirits.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 227 
 
 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (4) Measures Affecting Production and 
Trade; (iv) Intellectual property rights; (c) Geographical indications: paragraph 196, pages 92-93: 
 
Canada notes that, "Third-country applications must  also include the specification, including methods 
of preparation, and proof that the name is protected as GI in the country of origin." 
 
Question 101 
Could the EC explain whether "protected as GI" c ould include protected as a certification mark or 
through use (e.g. in Common Law jurisdictions)? 
 
Answer
 
According to Art. 5 of Regulation (EC) No. 510/ 2006, a registration applic ation concerning a third 
country must comprise the proof that the name in qu estion is protected in its country of origin. No 
specific form of protection is specified in the re gulation and the Commission is ready to examine any 
proof brought as regards protec tion in the country of origin. 
 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (4) Measures Affecting Production and 
Trade; (iv) Intellectual Property Rights; (c ) Geographical indications: paragraph 196, 
pages 92-93: 
 The report by the Secretariat states: "For agricu ltural products and foodstuffs, there is a Community-
wide system of examination and registration. A ssociations of producers and/or processors working 
with the same agricultural product or foodstuff, or other natural or legal pers ons, are entitled to apply 
for registration for GIs. Applications for GIs of pro ducts of EC origin are sent to the relevant Member 
State. If the EC Member State (or the relevant au thority in the third country) considers that the 
application meets the requirements for registration, it transmits it to the European Commission, which 
verifies whether the conditions are met."   
Question 102 
Could the EC provide details re garding opposition and can cellation procedures at the member state 
level for interested parties not originating in the EC? 
 
Answer
 
Objection  
As regards the national phase of the procedure,  Article 5(5) of Regulation (EC) No. 510/2006 
requires the EU Member State to initiate a national objection procedure ensuring adequate 
publication of the application and providing for a reasonable period within which any natural or 
legal person having a legitimate interest and establ ished or resident in its territory may lodge an 
objection to the application. At the EC stage of the procedure leading to the fin al decision, any natural or legal person having a 
legitimate interest, established or resident in a Member State other than that applying for the 
registration or in a third country, may object to the proposed registration by lodging a duly 
substantiated statement (Art. 7(2)).  
 Cancellation
 
Under Art. 12 of Regulation (EC) No. 510/2006, "A ny natural or legal p erson having a legitimate 
interest may request cancellation of the registrati on, giving reasons for the request". A request for 
cancellation of a registration is to be drawn up in accordance with Annex VII to Regulation (EC) 
No. 1898/2006. Point 5 of the said  Annex  asks "reasons for cancellation" and requires the applicant 
to provide a statement setting out the reasons and justification for the cancellation.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 228  
 
 Question 103 
On what grounds can a GI application be opposed  or cancelled at the member and/or Community 
level and what evidence is needed?  
Answer
 
Objection  
National level As provided for in Art. 5(5) of Regulation 510/200 6, the Member State must consider the admissibility 
of objections received in the light of the criteria refe rred to in the first subparagraph of Art. 7(3) (see 
below "EC level"). 
EC level 
Statements of objection are admissible only if they:  (a) show non-compliance with the conditions 
referred to in Article 2; or (b) show that the reg istration of the name proposed would be contrary to 
paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article 3;  or (c) show that the registration of the name proposed would 
jeopardise the existence of an entirely or partly iden tical name or of a trademark or the existence of 
products which have been legally on the market for at least five 
years preceding the date of the publication provided fo r in Article 6(2); or (d) give details from which 
it can be concluded that the name for which registrati on is requested is generic within the meaning of 
Article 3(1). The criteria referred to in points (b), (c) and (d) are to be evaluated in relation to the territory of the 
Community, which in the case of intellectual propert y rights refers only to the territory or territories 
where the said rights are protected. 
 Cancellation
 
- The cancellation procedure referred to in  Art 12(1) of Regulation 510/2006 is 
 initiated by the Commission. The cancellati on of the registration cannot take place at 
 the national level. The cancellation is published in the Official Journal of the 
 European Union. - A request for cancellation of a registration referred to in Art 12(2) is to be drawn up 
 in accordance with Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No. 1898/2006. Point 5 of the said  Annex asks "reasons for cancellation"  and requires the applicant to provide a 
 statement setting out the reasons and justification for the cancellation.  
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (2) Agri culture and Related Activities; (ii) Common 
Agricultural Policy; (a) Overview: paragraph 12, page 99: 
 
The Secretariat report notes that the amount of support  to agriculture has declined somewhat in recent 
years and a larger share is provided in the form of payments (Producer Support Estimate data in 
Table IV.3). Some of the changes between 2005 a nd 2007 may have to do with the implementation of 
policy changes decided in earlier years, while some  may have resulted from more favourable market 
prices. With the Health Check now being implemented, the direction of policy change would seem to be reinforced. However, lower market prices would at  the same time work in the opposite direction.  
 Question 104 
What effects would lower market pric es in the next couple of years have on the size and nature of EC 
support, compared to the picture in 2007?  
Answer
 
The structure of the Common Agricultural Policy is such that market price variations do not heavily 
impact upon the size and the nature of the support. Mo re than 90 % of the Direct Payments in the EU 
will be decoupled by 2013. Direct Payments do not  vary with market prices and decoupled payments 
do not influence production decisions.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 229 
 
 
 The EC can confirm that the process of ongoing refor ms has, with the Health Check decision, been 
reinforced. Decoupling has been fu rther accentuated and farmers w ill in their production decisions 
need to react ever more to signals from (world ) markets. However, the EC will refrain from 
answering to a question that depicts a hypothetical future price situation.  
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (2) Agri culture and Related Activities; (ii) Common 
Agricultural Policy; (a) Overview: paragraph 14, page 101:  
 Question 105 
Footnote 12 of paragraph 14 states that for the EC’s 2006/07 WTO export subsidy notification, new 
export subsidy commitment levels for the EC 25 and EC27 were notified, however, these 
commitments have not yet been certified by the WTO.  Could the EC please explain its motivation for notifying uncertified export subsidy commitments?   
Answer
 
The explanation was already given at the 54 th meeting of the Committee on Agriculture on 
12 March 2009 as answer to questions from Austra lia. The answer given in that meeting was as 
follows: 
"The EC moved to using EC25 commitment l evels after concluding 24:6 negotiations also 
with Australia in which process information on ES commitments has been provided to 
negotiating partners. The EC followed the meth od that it applied earlier at the time of 
enlargement to EC15. An info  paper with the resulting EC25 co mmitment levels was given to 
this Committee at the previous meeting in Novem ber 2008. The EC is currently in the process 
of working out its draft EC25 schedule, which unfortunately still has to be done on the basis 
of an uncertified EC15 schedule. In due cou rse after conclusion of the Article XXIV-6 
negotiations the EC will also present an EC27 schedule." 
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (2) Agri culture and Related Activities; (ii) Common 
Agricultural Policy; (b) Policies on selected pr oduct groups; Oilseeds and oils: paragraph 30, 
pages 105-106: 
 
This paragraph states that rape is the "…leading bi o-fuel crop in the EC: about 3.6 million hectares or 
3-5% of arable land is cultivated with rape for bio-fuel production." This paragraph also states that 
under the Health Check, the "energy crop premium" will be abolished in 2010.  
 
Question 106 
Could the EC please describe whether it intends to su pport producers of bio-fuels crops in the future, 
and if so, how? 
 
Answer  
As matters stand, there is no intention to grant in future new EU specific aids to biofuel crops. 
 
Part IV.  Trade Policies by Sector: (2) Agri culture and Related Activities; (ii) Common 
Agricultural Policy; (b) Policies on selected pr oduct groups; Livestock and meat: paragraph 39, 
pages 108-109: 
 
Paragraph 39 notes that the EC markets for livest ock and meat remain one of the most heavily 
protected sub sectors in agriculture. The report also notes that tariffs are a key trade policy measure 
used to protect the sector.  
One example of how tariffs are used to protect the li vestock and meat sub-sector is the structure of in-
quota tariffs applied on pork tariff lines. The EC ma intains multiple in-quota tariff rates for the same 
tariff line. There are three pork tariff lines each of  which has multiple in-quota tariffs. For example, 
tariff line 0203.29.55 "Boneless cuts, other than hams  and shoulders, of domes tic swine, fresh" has WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 230  
 
 three separate in-quota tariff rates, i.e.1) 434 €/1,00 0 kg/net, 2) 250 €/1,000 kg/net, and 3) 300 €/1,000 
kg/net. It is Canada’s view that maintaining a system of multiple in-quota tariff rates on the same 
tariff line complicates customs procedures and creates  uncertain terms of trade for both exporters and 
importers.  Question 107 
Canada would like to seek clarification and furthe r information on the in-quota tariff regime applied 
to pork imports.  
Answer
 
The in-quota tariff regime applied to pork imports ref lects the outcome of different trade negotiations. 
 Question 108 
Can the EC explain the rationale for having multiple  bound in-quota tariffs for the same bound tariff 
line? 
 
Answer
 
See answer to question 107.  Question 109 
Does the EC plan to reform the bound in-quota tariff stru cture that is currently applied to pork imports 
under tariff quota to create a more transparent and simplified tariff structure? 
 
Answer
 
The EC will apply the results of the DDA negotiations.  
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (2) Agri culture and Related Activities; (ii) Common 
Agricultural Policy; (b) Policies on selected product groups; Dairy pr oducts: paragraph 44, 
pages 109-110:  
The report states that, "The EC maintains a number of  schemes for the subsidized disposal of dairy 
products on the internal market.
44" Note 44 further states that, "these subsidies are for: (i) the feed use 
of skimmed milk and skimmed milk powder; (ii) the use of skimmed milk for casein and caseinates; 
(iii) the industrial use of cream, butter, and con centrated butter; and (iv) a school milk scheme."  
 
Question 110 
Can the EC confirm that products benefiting from these subsidies are not exported outside the EC?  
 
Answer  
- (i) and (ii) have been suspended since October 2006;  - (iii) has been suspended since April 20 07 and will be abolished on 1 July 2009;  
- products under (iv) are for direct consumption in EU. 
 
Question 111 In the case that they are not, what measures are in place to ensure that these products are not 
exported?  
Answer
 
See reply to question 110. 
 Question 112 
Can the EC confirm under which notific ation these subsidies are reported? 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 231 
 
 
 Answer  
For as long as they still exist, these subsidies are covered by the EC's Domestic Support notification. 
 Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector; (2) Agricu lture and Related Activities; (iii) Fisheries; 
(b) Common Fisheries Policy (CFP): paragraph 70, page 116: 
 Question 113 
Can the EC provide a list of all autonomous tari ff rate quotas along with corresponding MFN applied 
rates, utilisation rates, HS tariff code coverage, country-specific coverage, and reference prices, as 
applicable? 
 
Answer
 
The list of autonomous MFN tariff rate quotas and the corresponding produc t coverage can be found 
in Council Regulation (EC) No. 824/2007 of 10 July  2007 opening and providing for the management 
of autonomous Community tariff quotas for certai n fishery products for the period 2007 to 2009, 
published in the EU's Official Journal, issue L 184 of 14.7.2007, p. 1–5. These quotas are MFN, erga 
omnes quotas, thus they are not country specific.   Information on the utilisation rate of tariff quotas  is publicly available at the EC's Commission 
website (Directorate General fo r Taxation and Customs Union): 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds/qotcau_en.htm 
 The list of products subject to reference prices is included in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1307/2008 of 19 December 2008 fixing the reference prices for certain fishery products for 
the 2009 fishing year Official Journal i ssue L 344, of 20.12.2008, p. 37-40. 
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector; (2) Agricu lture and Related Activities; (iii) Fisheries; 
(b) Common Fisheries Policy (CFP): paragraph 70, page 116:  
The Secretariat report notes that, "The main changes compared to 2004-06 regime for autonomous 
tariff quotas include increases of some quotas […]; and the removal of quotas on products […], due to 
underutilization." 
 
Question 114 
How are autonomous tariff rate quotas developed and administered? 
 Answer
 
A full explanation about how are autonomous tariff rate quotas developed and the decision-making 
process that leads to their establishment can be found in the Commission Communication concerning 
autonomous tariff suspensions and quotas published in the EU's Official Journal, issue C 128 of 
25/04/1998, p. 2.  
With regard to the administrati on of autonomous tariff quotas, they  are managed by the Commission's 
Directorate-General responsible for Taxation and Cu stoms Union on a 'first-come first-served' basis 
irrespective of where the goods are imported into the EC. The legal provisions governing the 
management of these tariff quotas are contained in Articles 308a to 308c of Commission Regulation 
(EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down prov isions for the implementation of the Community 
Customs Code. Published in the EU's Of ficial Journal issue L 253, of 11.10.1993. 
 The above mentioned communication and regulations  can be found at the EC's EUR-Lex website 
providing direct free access to European Union law: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 232  
 
 More information on tariff quotas can be obtai ned at the following EC Commission's website 
(Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union): http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/customs/c ustoms_duties/tariff_aspects/quotas/index_en.htm. 
 Question 115 
What is the decision-making process that leads to their establishment?  
 
Answer
 
Please see reply to question 114 above. 
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (4) Manufacturi ng; (ii) Selected industries, (a) Automotive: 
paragraph 87, pages 126-127:  
The Secretariat report indicates that part of the EC ’s new strategy for its automotive industry includes 
reducing administrative barriers by replacing 38 EC directives and cutting CO
2 emissions by 20% by 
2020. 
 
Question 116 
Could the EC provide further information on the initiative, including information on which Directives 
have been replaced or will be repl aced and the timelines for replacement? 
 Answer
 
The proposal for a Regulation con cerning type-approval requirements on the general safety of motor 
vehicles foresees the repeal of  the following Directives: 
- Council Directive 70/221/EEC of 20 March 1970 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to fuel ta nks and rear underrun protection of motor 
 vehicles and their trailers,  
- Council Directive 70/222/EEC of 20 March 1970 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to the space for mounting and the fixing of rear  registration plates on motor vehicles and their trailers,  - Council Directive 70/311/EEC of 8 June 1970 on the approximation of the laws of the  Member States relating to the steering equipment for motor vehicles and their 
 trailers,  
- Council Directive 70/387/EEC of 27 July 1970 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to the doo rs of motor vehicles and their trailers,  
- Council Directive 70/388/EEC of 27 July 1970 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to audible warning devices for motor vehicles,  
- Council Directive 71/320/EEC of 26 July 1971 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to the braki ng devices of certain categories of motor 
 vehicles and of their trailers,  - Council Directive 72/245/EEC of 20 June 1972 relating to the radio interference  (electromagnetic compatibility) of vehicles,  - Council Directive 74/60/EEC of 17 December 1973 on the approximation of the laws 
 of the Member States relating to the interior fittings of motor vehicles,  
- Council Directive 74/61/EEC of 17 December 1973 on the approximation of the laws 
of the Member States relating to devices to  prevent the unauthorized use of motor 
vehicles,  
- Council Directive 74/297/EEC of 4 June 1974 on the approximation of the laws of the 
 Member States relating to the interior fittings of motor vehicles (the behaviour of the 
 steering mechanism in the event of an impact),  - Council Directive 74/408/EEC of 22 July 1974 relating to motor vehicles with regard  to the seats, their anchorages and head restraints,   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 233 
 
 
 - Council Directive 74/483/EEC of 17 September 1974 on the approximation of the 
 laws of the Member States relating to the external projections of motor vehicles,  
- Council Directive 75/443/EEC of 26 June 1975 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to the rev erse and speedometer equipment of motor 
 vehicles,  
- Council Directive 76/114/EEC of 18 December 1975 on the approximation of the 
 laws of the Member States relating to statutory plates and inscriptions for motor  vehicles and their trailers, and their location and method of attachment,  - Council Directive 76/115/EEC of 18 December 1975 on the approximation of the  laws of the Member States relating to an chorages for motor-vehicle safety belts,  
- Council Directive 76/756/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to the insta llation of lighting and light-signalling devices 
 on motor vehicles and their trailers,  - Council Directive 76/757/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to retro-reflect ors for motor vehicles and their trailers,  
- Council Directive 76/758/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to the end-ou tline marker lamps, front position (side) 
 lamps, rear position (side) lamps, stop lamps, daytime running lamps and side  marker lamps for motor vehic les and their trailers,  
- Council Directive 76/759/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to direction i ndicator lamps for motor vehicles and their 
 trailers,  
- Council Directive 76/760/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to the rear regi stration plate lamps for motor vehicles and 
 their trailers,  - Council Directive 76/761/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to motor vehicle headlamps which function as main-beam 
 and/or dipped-beam headlam ps and to light sources (filament lamps and others) for 
 use in approved lamp units of mo tor vehicles and of their trailers,  
- Council Directive 76/762/EEC of 27 July 1976 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to front  fog lamps for motor vehicles,  
- Council Directive 77/389/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to motor-vehicle towing-devices,  
- Council Directive 77/538/EEC of 28 June 1977 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to rear fog la mps for motor vehicles and their trailers,  
- Council Directive 77/539/EEC of 28 June 1977 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to reversing lamp s for motor vehicles and their trailers,  
- Council Directive 77/540/EEC of 28 June 1977 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to pa rking lamps for motor vehicles,  
- Council Directive 77/541/EEC of 28 June 1977 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to safety be lts and restraint systems of motor vehicles,  
- Council Directive 77/649/EEC of 27September 1977 on the approximation of the  laws of the Member States relating to the fie ld of vision of motor vehicle drivers,  
- Council Directive 78/316/EEC of 21 Decem ber 1977 on the approximation of thlaws 
of the Member States relating to the interi or fittings of motor vehicles (identification 
of controls, tell-tales and indicators),  
- Council Directive 78/317/EEC of 21 December 1977 on the approximation of the  laws of the Member States relating to the defrosting and demisting systems of glazed 
 surfaces of motor vehicles,  
- Council Directive 78/318/EEC of 21 December 1977 on the approximation of the  laws of the Member States relating to  the wiper and washer systems of motor 
 vehicles,  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 234  
 
 - Council Directive 78/549/EEC of 12 June 1978 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to the wheel guards of motor vehicles,  
- Council Directive 78/932/EEC of 16 October 1978 on the approximation of the laws  of the Member States relating to head re straints of seats of motor vehicles,  
- Council Directive 89/297/EEC of 13 April 1989 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to the latera l protection (side guards) of certain motor 
 vehicles and their trailers,  - Council Directive 91/226/EEC of 27 March 1991 on the approximation of the laws of 
 the Member States relating to the spray- suppression systems of certain categories of 
 motor vehicles and their trailers,  
- Council Directive 92/21/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the masses and dimensions of 
 motor vehicles of category M1,  - Council Directive 92/22/EEC of 31 March 1992 on safety glazing and glazing 
 materials on motor vehicles and their trailers,  - Council Directive 92/23/EEC of 31 March 1992 relating to tyres for motor vehicles 
 and their trailers and to their fitting,  
- Council Directive 92/24/EEC of 31 March 1992 relating to speed limitation devices 
or similar speed limitation on-board systems of certain categories of motor vehicles,  
- Council Directive 92/114/EEC of 17 December 1992 relating to the external 
projections forward of the cab's rear panel of motor vehicles of category N. 
- Directive 94/20/EC of the European Par liament and of the Council of 30 May 1994 
 relating to the mechanical coupling devi ces of motor vehicles and their trailers and 
 their attachment to those vehicles, - Directive 95/28/EC of the European Parliame nt and of the Council of 24 October 
 1995 relating to the burning behaviour of materials used in the interior construction  of certain categories of motor vehicle, 
- Directive 96/27/EC of the European Par liament and of the Council of 20 May 1996 
 on the protection of occupants of motor vehicles in the event of a side impact and 
 amending Directive 70/156/EEC, - Directive 96/79/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December  1996 on the protection of occupants of motor vehicles in the event of a frontal impact  and amending Directive 70/156/EEC, 
- Directive 97/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 1997 
 relating to the masses and dimensions of certain categories of motor vehicles and 
 their trailers and amending Directive 70/156/EEC, - Directive 98/91/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 December  1998 relating to motor vehicles and their trailers intended for the transport of 
 dangerous goods by road and amending Directive 70/156/EEC relating to the type 
 approval of motor vehicles and their trailers, - Directive 2000/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
26 June 2000 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the front underrun protection of motor vehicles and amending Council Directive 70/156/EEC, 
- Directive 2001/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
 27 September 2001 relating to heating systems for motor vehicles and their trailers,  amending Council Directive 70/ 156/EEC and repealing Council 
 Directive 78/548/EEC, - Directive 2001/85/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
 20 November 2001 relating to special provisi ons for vehicles used for the carriage of 
 passengers comprising more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat, and 
 amending Directives 70/156/EEC and 97/27/EC, - Directive 2003/97/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of  10 November 2003 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 235 
 
 
  the type-approval of devices for indirect vision and of vehicles equipped with these 
 devices, amending Directive 70/156/EEC and repealing Directive 71/127/EEC.  
With the exception of the Directive on tyres, which will be repeale d in 2017, the other Directives will 
be repealed in 2014. 
 
It is planned to replace the requirements contai ned in several of the above-mentioned repealed 
Directives by UNECE Regulations. However, this is subject to a detailed comparison of the two sets 
of requirements , which will have to be carried out by the end of 2010. An indicative  list of UNECE 
Regulations which could be made mandatory is attached. 
 
Question 117  
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
 
It is planned to simplify the existing legislation on agricultural and forestry vehicles (tractors) and on 
two- or three-wheel motor vehicles. The Europe an Commission intends to make proposals this year. 
 In particular, concerning two- or three-wheel motor vehicles, it is planned to replace the framework 
Directive and its separate Directives by a main Regulation and a limited number of implementing 
Regulations through Comitology. A tota l of 14 Directives should be repealed. 
 Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (4) Manufacturi ng; (ii) Selected industries, (a) Automotive: 
paragraph 88, page 127:  
The Secretariat report provides information on the European Green Cars Initiative. 
 
Question 118 
Could the EC please provide additional in formation on this initiative, including; 
a. How the €5 billion envelope for the European  Green Cars Initiative is broken down?  
b. Has the envelope for the European Green Ca r Initiative been expanded since it was first 
announced in November 2008 or are the Euro pean Investment Bank loans that were 
announced on March 12, 2009 in addition to the €5 billion?   
c. Can the EC provide any additional informa tion on the European Green Cars Initiative 
including information on who is eligible to apply and information on leverage ratios?  
 
Answer
 
A financial envelope of at least € 5 billion is foresee n, of which (i) € 4 billion will be made through 
loans by the European Investment Bank (EIB), and (ii) € 1 billion through support to research under 
the Seventh Framework Programme for Research (FP7). These envelopes have not been extended 
since they were announced in November.  
 
(i) The European Clean Transport Facility (E CTF) is a major EIB financing programme 
approved by the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of the European Union (ECOFIN) on 
Dec 2, 2008 to support investments targeting resea rch, development and innovation in the areas 
of emissions reduction and energy efficie ncy in the European transport industry. 
The ECTF will amount to EUR 4bn per year and targets automotive (manufacturers/suppliers), 
railroad, aircraft and shipping industries. 
It is primarily designed to enhance the investment  capacity of corporate borrowers in support of 
eligible investments. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 236  
 
 • Beneficiaries : Companies of any size and ownership of both investment and sub-
investment grade credit ratings (or equivale nt) that are committed to an eligible 
investment programme in the European transport industry.  
• Financing Structures : direct lending, co-financing, intermediated financing, guarantees 
for syndicate loans, etc. Generally the EIB utilises co-financing and intermediated 
structures with clients' existing "house-banks".  
• Maturities : up to 10 years  
• Pricing : attractive terms due to EIB's AAA-rating and not-for-profit policies. EIB's 
interest rate will include risk pricing accordi ng to the risk profile of the transaction.  
 
Eligible Project Cost Definition  
Eligible investments comprise:  
• research, development and innovation aiming at emissions reduction 
innovation/prototyping/new tooling, upgradi ng of existing/new production facilities that 
do not result in a net capacity increase and that target EU 2012/2020 CO2 passenger 
vehicle emission requirements and other em ission/fuel efficiency objectives in the 
transport sector as well as complementa ry measures aimed at achieving the ECTF 
objectives  
 
(ii) Despite its name, the Green Cars Initiative is  not only for passenger cars.  Under the Green 
Cars Initiative, the resea rch topics include: 
 
• Research for trucks;  
• Research on greening internal combustion engines; 
• Research on bio methane use; 
• Logistics, transport system optimisation; 
• Hydrogen and fuel cells; and 
• Research on electric and hybrid vehicles, notably research on : 
 High density batteries; 
 Electric engines; and 
 Smart electricity grids and vehicle charging systems. 
  
Under FP7, four Calls will be laun ched in July 2009 to implement the Green Cars Initiative, with an 
overall budget of around € 100 million.  The fund ing for road transport projects under FP7 in 2010 
will focus on the electrification of road transpor t and research into hybrid technologies. In the 
following FP7 Calls, in 2011, the topics for projects to be funded will broaden to the other areas of 
the Green Cars Initiative. 
 
Paragraph 88 talks about specific measures to assi st auto-makers such as temporary authorization to 
Member States (to provide subsidized loans for investment in new cars).  
 
Question 119 
Who is responsible for ensuring that subsidized loans are consistent with international trade 
obligations, a Member State making the loan or the EC?   
Answer
 
The control of State support measures within  the EU corresponds to the European Commission. 
Subsidised loans, as other forms of State support, a re subject to strict EU legislation on the granting 
of State aid. The objective of that legislation is  to avoid distortions of the EU internal market. 
However, because of the severity of the rules, there is no precede nt that an approved measure is 
nevertheless found incompatible with EC  obligations under the SCM Agreement.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 237 
 
 
 Question 120  
What specific conditions have changed?  
 
Answer  
Please find information available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/automotive/pag esbackground/competitiveness/com_2009_104/annex_2.
pdf. 
 Question 121  
What is meant by "temporary"? Has a timeline been defined? What factors will be used to determine 
when the "temporary authorization" will be terminated? 
 
Answer
 
The Temporary Community Framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the 
current financial and economic crisis applies from  17 December 2008 until 31 December 2010. By 31 
December 2010, the Commission believes the financial and economic crisis will be over. If at some 
point the view would be formed that the crisis will not be over by that time, the Commission will consider whether or not to keep th ese temporary measures in place.  
 Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (4) Manufacturi ng; (ii) Selected Industries (e) Textiles and 
clothing: paragraph 107, page 132: 
 
Question 122 
The last line of paragraph 107 states that the EC  "continues to apply quantitative restrictions on 
imports of textiles to the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea", however the reference of 
Chapter III (2)(vi)(b) provided refers to imports " from ".  
Could the EC please clarify whether restrictions apply "to or from" the Democratic People’s Republic 
of North Korea?   
Answer
 
There is a mistake in the last line of paragraph 107.   It should be corrected to read: "the EC 
continues to apply quantitative restrictions on imports from  the Democratic People's Republic of 
Korea".   Therefore the reference of  Chapter III (2)(vi)(b) is correct 
 Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (5) Serv ices; (ii) Financial Services; (a) Banking: 
paragraph 124, page 138:  
Paragraph 124 states that, "Regulation of the ba nking system in the EC is based on the single 
European passport principle, and prudential superv ision of banks is according to the home-country 
control principle".  
Question 123 
Can the EC clarify whether non-European Comm unities financial institutions that establish a 
subsidiary in one EC member country can also use the passport principle and undertake business 
throughout the EC member states?   
Answer
 
Yes, subsidiaries of non-EU credit institutions ha ve the same rights as EU based credit institutions. 
They may provide cross border services and establish branches without limitations. 
 Question 124 
Are different or more onerous requirements app lied to non-EC firms by the home member state 
relative to EC firms? WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 238  
 
 Answer
 
No, EU law does not make difference between licencing requirements to  a subsidiary of an EU based 
or non-EU based credit institutions. Members States may apply different licencing rules but are also 
bound by trade agreements.  
Host competent authorities have to treat the same way the branches of credit institutions licensed in 
the EU disregarding whether the mother company of  the subsidiary is based in the EU or not.  
Requirements for establishing (direct) branches of non-EU credit institutions without incorporating 
(establishing a subsidiary) in the EU is not harm onised by EU banking regulations. Member States 
are free to set requirements but these may not be  more favourable for non-EU credit institutions than 
for credit institutions from another Member State. 
 
Question 125 
Are translation requirement applied by host stat es (e.g. French prospectus in France, etc.)? 
 
Answer  
Yes. When a prospectus is "passported" at least the summary of the prospectus has to be translated 
into the language of the host Member State. Depending on the scope of the offer, the prospectus should be drafted in a language a ccepted by the host Member States or in a language "customary in 
the sphere of international finance".  Question 126 
Is the same passport model followed for all of  the financial sectors i.e. banking, insurance 
(life/property and casualty), and securities?  
Answer
 
Yes, but the modalities may vary from one sector to another. 
 
Question 127  
While the EC has made great strides in the development of a passport model and 
harmonization/consistency of rul es through its financial services action plan, do difficulties arise 
when EC member countries attempt to raise national standards ("gold plating") or interpret EC rules 
differently?   
 
Answer  
"Gold plating"  
Quite a big number of EU legal acts in the fi nancial services field are minimum harmonisation 
directives, which allow the Member States to exceed the terms of the directives. The Commission is 
however aware that this could cause problems fo r the functioning of the EU financial market. 
Consequently, the Commission takes the view that na tional add-ons should be avoided. In terms of 
future legislation, gold-plating could be avoided by a more frequent use of maximum harmonisation 
rules. Different interpretation of EU rules
 
It is of utmost importance for the functioning of the EU financial market that EU rules are not 
interpreted differently. If the Commission disagrees with a Member States regarding its national 
interpretation, the Commission will consult with the Member State to make  sure that the Member 
State changes its national legislation. If the matter of disagreement is not resolved at this level, the 
Commission can decide to open an infringement procedure and ultimately go up to the European 
Court of Justice to settle the dispute. 
 
Question 128 
What affect do such actions have on limiting trade between EC member states as well as between EC 
members and non-member states?   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 239 
 
 
 Answer  
Differences in national legislation and interpretation could in partic ular result in extra costs and 
burdens for citizens and market operators and put na tional businesses at a competitive disadvantage 
compared wih other EU countries. This could re duce trade and limit the functioning of the EU single 
market, which ultimately would lead to limited growth  in the EU. This is why the Commission is 
focused on ensuring equal interpretation of EU rules in all Member States. 
 Question 129 
How does the EC deal with "gold plating" actions or  differences in interpretation by member states? 
 Answer
 
Please see reply to question 127.  Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (5) Services ; (iii) Telecommunications and postal services; 
paragraph 138, page 144: 
 The Secretariat report notes that competition in th e EC’s fixed voice market is still based largely on 
indirect access to wholesale products, and that competition is increasing in the mobile market.   
Question 130 
Could the EC provide statistics, by country, on the market shares separately for fixed and mobile telephone services: 1) provided by incumbent carriers;  2) provided by competitive providers using the 
wholesale services of the incumbent; and 3) prov ided by competitive providers using their own 
network; identifying the presence of stat e-owned incumbents where applicable? 
 
Answer
 
Each year, the European Commission drafts and publishes a progress report on the single European 
electronic communications market. The 14th Progress Report on the Single European Electronic 
Communication Market, which was released on 25 Ma rch 2009, presents the state of play in the 
telecoms market for 2008 at EU level and for each  Member State (where in some cases you can find 
information about the state ownership of incumb ents. E.g. Cyprus and Luxembourg). The report can 
be found at: 
www.ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/eco mm/library/communications_reports/annualreports/
14th/index_en.htm.  More specific information regarding the market shares of operators in the fixed market are provided 
in Figures 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 44, 45, and 49 on pages 45-64 of Volume 2. 
 
Moreover, details regarding the market shares of op erators in the mobile ma rket are provided in 
Figures 12 and 14 on pages 21 and 23 of Volume 2.   Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (5) Services ; (iii) Telecommunications and postal services: 
paragraph 141, pages 144-145: 
 The Secretariat report notes that the Commissi on tabled the Telecoms Reform Package on 
13 November 2007 recognizing that, inter alia, the te lecoms regulatory framework has failed to reach 
its full potential and risks falling behind.  Question 131 
Could the EC provide further information on th e measures under consideration to address identified 
problems?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 240  
 
 Answer
 
The proposals tabled by the Commission in Novem ber 2007 and now subject to Second Reading in the 
European Parliament and Council, are designed to update and strengthen the EU regulatory 
framework for electronic communi cations in three main areas: 
 
1. Providing for better regulation of the EU electronic communications sector, by simplifying 
and streamlining the regulatory environment . This is achieved inter alia by strengthening the 
independence and enforcement powers of national regul atory authorities and clarifying the principles 
applying to appeals against their decisions, as we ll as by updating the regulatory principles which 
guide them (for example to take fuller account of market developments such as investment in next 
generation access networks). With regard to radio spectrum, the proposals establish a strategic policy 
regarding spectrum use in electronic communications . They also aim to reduce the barriers to the 
single market by establishing service and technology neutrality as the basic principles for spectrum 
regulation, thus enabling better services through a more flexible use. In addition the coordinated 
introduction of tradability in specific spectru m bands can be adopted on an EU-wide basis 
 
2. Facilitating the completion of the single market for electronic communications by 
strengthening the tools available to ensure consistency  in the application of the rules across the EU. 
This is done in particular through the establishm ent of an independent body of regulators in 
electronic communications, which will combine the knowledge and experience of the national 
regulators and provide expert advice to the Commission and individual national regulatory 
authorities where needed. The co-ordination an d consultation mechanisms applicable to the 
imposition of ex ante regulatory obligations are also strengthened, for example by conferring 
additional powers on the Commission to address ca ses where national measures would create a 
barrier to the single market.   
3. Enhancing consumer protecti on and strengthening user rights
, by improving the security of 
electronic communications and users' privacy, by making number portability speedier and more 
efficient, and by promo ting a high quality of service and unobs tructed access to digital and online 
content. The reform proposals are also designed to ensure that users with disabilities, elderly users 
and people with special needs have better acce ss to electronic communications services. 
 
Question 132 Could the EC provide an u pdate on the expected date of passage of the Package? 
 
Answer
 
The next step for the EU Telecoms Package is now  a vote in second reading in the plenary of the 
European Parliament (expected in April); in th e meantime informal "trilogue meetings" between 
European Parliament, Commission and Council are ongoing.  The Reform of the EU Telecom Package 
is scheduled to be completed in June 2009 with its adoption by the Council.  
 The adoption of the revised regulatory framework in  the Member States will depend on the speed of 
the legislative process there, but the Commission is hopeful that it could become effective from 2010. 
 
The process can be followed at:   http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/ policy/ecomm/tomorrow/ next/index_en.htm 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindB yProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2007/0247 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindB yProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2007/0248 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/FindB yProcnum.do?lang=2&procnum=COD/2007/0249 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 241 
 
 
 Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (5) Services ; (iii) Telecommunications and postal services: 
paragraph 143, page 145:  
The Secretariat report notes that the opening in the postal market was accompanied by a gradual 
reduction in the reserved area to mail under 50g.  
 
Question 133 
Are there further anticipated reductions in the reserved area?  
 
Answer
 
Please refer to paragraph 144. 
 Question 134 
Is it intended that the revenues generated from th is reserved area will be sufficient to fund the 
universal service obligation in each Member state? 
 
Answer
 
There will be no reserved area anymore (again see par agraph 144). The confirmation of the date for 
completion of the internal market for postal service s will allow the benefits of greater competition to 
improve service levels, in terms of quality, prices and choice available to customers and to unlock the 
growth and employment potential of the sector. It was also considered a necessary and proportionate 
response to the needs both of users and of the broader European economy. 
Article 4 ,7 & 9 of the new Directive provid e for accompanying measures to safeguard universal 
service, with an important controlling and monitori ng role given to national regulatory authorities 
(article 21).   
Question 135 Is this expected to be the case even in those markets where addressed mail volumes have stagnated 
and declined?  
Answer
 
See answer to question 134. 
 
Question 136 
In the event that the re served area is not sufficient to cove r the cost of universal service what 
measures will be in place to ensure the pr ovision of affordable universal service? 
 Answer
 
There will be no reserved area anymore (again see paragraph 144). In some cases following the 
adoption of accompanying measures to safeguard th e universal service, financing the residual costs, 
if any, of the provision of universal service may still  be necessary in some Member States. Through a 
new Article 7 the directive clarifies the alternati ves available to Member St ates in cases where there 
is a need for external financing of the universal service. 
Member States should enjoy the freedom to decide the method of financing that is best adapted to 
their particular situation, while taking care at the same time of avoiding any disproportionate 
distortions to the functioning of the market.  The financing alternatives in the new Article 7 include public compensation through direct state 
subsidies or, indirectly, financing through th e use of public procurement procedures.  
Finally, Article 7 provides for the possibility to in troduce a compensation fund to compensate for the 
unfair burden, if any, incurred by the universal service  provider(s) in the provision of the service.  
 In the event that any residual net cost for the pr ovision of universal service ne eds to be compensated 
for, annex I of the Directive provides for guidan ce on how to calculate this net cost, if any.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 242  
 
 Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (5) Services ; (iii) Telecommunications and postal services: 
paragraph 144, page 145:  
The Secretariat report notes that, "31 December 2010 [i]s the final date for full internal market 
opening…" 
 
Question 137 
Based on a market of 27 Members, how many are antic ipated to achieve the 2010 date for full internal 
market opening?   Answer
 
We wish to refer Canada to footnote 211 in page 145 of Chapter IV, and to OJ C 265/26, 18 October 2008 
 
Question 138 
Of those states that will not meet this date , what are the main reasons for the delay? 
 
Answer
 
No delays are expected in the transposition of the third Postal Directive. All 27 Member States have 
to transpose all requirements of Directive 2008/6/ EC, and notably open fully their postal markets at 
the date(s) fixed in article 2&3. 
 
Part IV. Trade Policies by Sector: (5) Serv ices; (vi) Transport; (e) Air transport: 
paragraph 164, page 151:  
The Secretariat Report mentions the European Avia tion Safety Agency (EASA). Canada is pleased 
with the recent EC amendment (No 1356/2008) that recognizes the differentiation between 
certification and validation processes in its regulati on on fees and charges levied by the European 
Aviation Safety Agency. We also note the Commiss ion’s commitment to develop a hybrid system of 
charges based upon this amendment.   
Question 139 
To this end, Canada would be gr ateful to know where the EC is in terms of the development and 
implementation of the hybrid fees and charges structure.  
 
Answer
 
The European Aviation Safety Agency has commissi oned a study to analyse possible alternative ways 
ahead to design the new fees and charges system. The study should be finalised by the end of this 
year. The Commission will subsequently analyse the results of this work and proceed as appropriate. 
 Question 140  
Canada would like to encourage the EC to find  innovative ways to promote adoption of the 
amendments as soon as possible. 
 
Answer
 
The changes to the present system will be adopted th rough an amendment to the existing Commission 
Regulation on fees and charges.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 243 
 
 
 Part IV. Trade Policies and Practices by Sect or: (5) Services; (vi) Professional services: 
paragraph 169, page 153:  
Paragraph 169 indicates that the Commission, along with national competition authorities, is 
reviewing current regulatory regimes for professi onal services to remove unjustified regulatory 
restrictions. 
 
Question 141 
Will the review also be considering changes to the regulatory regimes governing the treatment of 
foreign service suppliers?  
 
Answer
 
Directive 2006/123/EC (Services Directive) obliges EU  Member States to evaluate certain restrictions 
that generally apply to regulated professions. Fo r example, Member States will have to evaluate 
whether requirements on numerus clausus or fixed tariffs are justified by an overriding reason of 
general interest and proportionate. Under the Servi ces Directive, Member Stat es shall also ensure 
that restrictions to the exercise of multidisciplina ry activities by professional services are justified and 
proportionate in order to guarantee compliance w ith the rules governing professional ethics and 
conduct and necessary to ensu re independence and impartiality. 
In addition, the Services Directive obliges EU Me mber States to remove all total prohibitions on 
commercial communications. The Services Directive also obliges Member States to ensure that 
professional rules on commercial communications are non-discriminatory, justified by an overriding 
reason relating to the public interest and proportionate.   The Services Directive has to be implemented by  Member States by 28 December 2009. The Services 
Directive only applies to individuals having the nationality of a EU (EEA) Member State and to legal 
entities established in the EU (EEA). Therefore, th e Services Directive does not oblige Member States 
to consider changes governing the t reatment of foreign service providers. 
 
Question 142 
Will the Commission be releasing public progress repor ts of the review and subsequent regulatory 
changes, if any?  
 
Answer
 
The Services Directive obliges Member St ates to review their legislation in a number of areas. It also 
requests Member States to report to the Co mmission on the results of their review by 
28 December 2009 at the latest and sets up a process of "mutual evaluation.  On the basis of the 
results of the reviews and in the light of th e observations made the Commission will draw up a 
summary report and submit it to the European Parliament and the Council. 
 
Part IV. Trade Policies and Practices by Sect or: (5) Services; (vi) Professional services: 
paragraphs 171, 173 and 175, pages 153-154:  
These paragraphs indicate that practice and licensi ng requirements and procedures, as well as reserved 
rights for professionals in legal services, accounting and auditing services, and architectural and engineering services vary between Member States.   
Question 143 
Is there a single window site for professional ser vices, or for each respective professional service 
where the various requirements and procedures can be found?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 244  
 
 Answer
 
Directive 2006/123/EC ("Services Directive") obliges Member States to create "points of single 
contact" (PSC) where service providers must be abl e to obtain information and to complete all the 
procedures and formalities necessary to provide services in each EU Member State. The deadline for 
the implementation of the Service s Directive is 28 December 2009. 
 
For those professional services covered by the Services Directive (see definition of scope of Services 
Directive in its Article 2), the PSC will be the single window where the various requirements and procedures can be found. 
 
NEW ZEALAND
 
 
Question 1 
Agriculture (WT/TPR/S/214, p. x, para 16) 
The Secretariat report notes that the EC has some of its highest tariffs on agricultural products and 
that "agricultural products remain protected by a complex tariff structure, tariff quotas and SPS 
measures, and still receive export subsidies (WT/TPR/S /214, p. x, para 16). New Zealand agrees with 
the EC’s "firm belief that further liberalization of  trade in agricultural products is an important 
contribution to sustainable growth of the globa l economy" (See European Communities Report, page 
12, para 35). In what ways does the EC intend to fu rther reform its tariff and SPS regime in order to 
take account of the benefits of liberalization of tr ade in agricultural products to the global economy, of 
which the EU is an integral part? 
 
Answer  
As regards SPS, all the measures adopted by the EC are always based on scientific advice provided 
by the international standard setting bodies mentio ned in the SPS Agreement. In accordance with the 
SPS notification procedure, the EC always opens a comment period to allow interested countries to 
send the information they consider relevant in order to  be taken into account. The EC is open to all 
the technical and scientific information that WT O Members send related to the measures under 
consideration when the protection level is hi gher than foreseen in international standards. 
As regards the EC tariffs part of the question, this is a pure DDA issue which is addressed under the 
tariff simplification chapter in the framework of the agricultural ma rket access negotiations. 
 
Question 2 
Agriculture (WT/TPR/S/214, pp 98-99, para 16) 
New Zealand acknowledges the positive reforms to the CAP that have led to movements towards less 
trade-distorting measures (WT/TPR/S/214, pp 98-99, para 10). More recently, however, the EC has 
reintroduced the payment of export subsidies for ma ny dairy products (See WT/TPR/S/214, p. 96, 
para 2). Given that export subsidies are among the mo st trade distorting of interventions, how does the 
EC reconcile the reintroduction of these export subsid ies with its reform objective of "reinforc[ing] 
the market orientation of the Common Agriculture  Policy" (See WT/TPR/G/214, p.15, para 50)? Can 
the EC further explain how the reintroduction of ex port subsidies is consistent with the commitment 
by World Leaders at the November 2008 G20 Summ it to reject "protectionism" and refrain from 
"raising new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services"? Furthermore, EC 
representatives have described the subsidies publicly  as "temporary" and "emergency measures" – in 
light of that can the EC comment as to when it intends to remove the subsidies? 
 
Answer  
The decision taken to reintroduce export refunds for dairy products concerns a temporary measure 
without any predetermined duration. In the process of allocating these export subsidies the EC will of 
course respect its WTO commitments. The G20 Members agr eed inter alia to refrain, within the next 
12 months, from implementing World Trade Organizati on (WTO) inconsistent measures to stimulate 
exports. In using export refunds, we respect our scheduled commitments. Th erefore, these measures  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 245 
 
 
 are not WTO inconsistent measures. Neither th e letter nor the spirit of the G20 Communiqué 
precludes the possibility to resort to WTO compatible export refunds. The EU is committed to the 
'Doha Development Agenda' (DDA), negotiations  which aim at further liberalising trade, 
substantially cutting trade distorting agricultura l support and eliminating trade distorting export 
competition practices. The EC stands by its comm itment to eliminate export subsidies by 2013 on 
condition of the successful completion of the DDA.  
 
Question 3 
Food and Beverage Regulations (WT/TPR/G/214, p.16, para 53) 
New Zealand welcomes the comments that the EC  is working towards a "flexible regulatory 
framework that facilitates access to  the single market" (WT/TPR/G/214, p.16, para 53) New Zealand 
has, however, noticed the EC has a number of wide-ranging and prescriptive regulations, particularly for food and beverages.  With regard to food and be verages, can the EC please detail how and when it 
intends to move towards a more flexible regul atory framework and specifically how its intended 
actions will improve access to the single market? 
 
Answer
 
SPS measures in relation to food and beverages ar e very substantially harmonised at EC level and 
only in exceptional cases do Member States apply non-har monised measures. Thus when goods from 
third countries are imported in an EU Member Stat e they may circulate freel y within the Community. 
This is of course one of the major attractions of the EC market for third c ountries, 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 wh ich are still subject to national rules. 
 
Question 4 
Wine (WT/TPR/S/214, p. 112, para 54) 
New Zealand noted with interest the comments in the Secretariat paper that "A new CMO for wine 
entered into force in August 2008, with the objectiv e of, inter alia, restoring market balance and 
increasing the competitiveness of EC wines vis-à-vi s "new world" wines" (See WT/TPR/S/214, p. 
112, para 54.) Can the EC please explain how it has ensured that its new CMO fulfils its objective? 
Can the EC further explain how it has designed the CMO and implementing regulations mindful 
of maintaining non-EU country access and ensuring that  implementing regulations are consistent with 
the provisions of the TBT Agreement; for instance th at they are "not prepared, adopted or applied 
with a view to or the effect of creating unnecessary obstacles to international trade"?  
 
Answer  
Before adopting Council Regulation (EC) No 479/20 08 on the common organisation of the market in 
wine, the Commission services undertook an impact assessment with the view to reforming the system 
in order to improve the competitiveness of EU  wine producers. A communication on the reform was 
also published where Member States and stake holders had the possibility to comment. In 2008, 
Regulation (EC) No. 479/2008 was subject to a notification to the WTO under the TBT Agreement prior to its adoption. The relevant draft implementin g regulations have been or will be notified in the 
coming weeks to the WTO under the TBT Agreement an d third countries will have the opportunity to 
submit their comments in due time.  
Question 5 
Fisheries (WT/TPR/S/214, page 113, para 59) 
New Zealand welcomes the continuation of the Autonomous Tariff Quota and Autonomous Tariff 
Suspension policies by the European Community within the 2007-2009 triennium. However, 
significant MFN tariffs remain on some products such as certain shellfish (See WT/TPR/S/214, 
p. 116, para 70.) As noted in the Secretariat re port, production in the EC remains beyond sustainable 
levels (See WT/TPR/S/214, page 113, para 59). In light of this, at what stage will the European WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 246  
 
 Community remove or further reduce MFN tariffs on all seafood products to improve market access 
and allow demand for seafood within the Europ ean Community to be met by imports?  
 
Answer
 
Currently the EC market, as supplied by domestic production and imports, does not appear to be in 
shortage of fish products. A sign of this is that for a range of fish species, some of which widely 
consumed, the abundant offer has resulted in depressed prices.  With regard to tariff reduction at MFN-level th e EC has repeatedly expressed its support for an 
ambitious and balanced result in the ongoing multila teral trade negotiations at the WTO in market 
access for non-industrial goods, including thus fish  products.  In this regard the EC favours a 
horizontal mechanism, with no exceptions, ensuring t hat tariff reductions are carried out across all 
products. 
 
Question 6 
Fisheries (See WT/TPR/S/214, pp. 113-114, paras 63-68) 
New Zealand acknowledges the EC’s efforts to re form the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) since 
2002.  New Zealand recognises that while the need fo r significant reform remains, as outlined by the 
Secretariat, much has been achie ved in the past seven years (See WT/TPR/S/214, p. 114, para 63). 
 New Zealand considers that a focus should be on  achieving greater policy coherence within and 
between the strands of the CFP; The Treaty and br oader EU policies (e.g. trade); and Member States’ 
national policies to ensure that the EU meets its su stainability objectives.  The EC’s subsidy regime 
continues to be a source of policy incoherence.  Wi th overcapacity persisting, it is disappointing that 
financial aid was increased in 2007 when the Euro pean Commission adopted a Regulation to increase 
by ten-fold the level of de minimis aid to €30,000 pe r undertaking in the fisheries sector, and again in 
2008 when the Council adopted the emergenc y aid package totalling €400 million (See 
WT/TPR/S/214, p. 114, para 68).  Can the EC explain why aid has been increased by such levels?  In 
terms of its impacts on overfishing and overcapac ity how does this aid differ from that provided 
historically?  How will the EU ensure this aid will not contribute to overfishing and overcapacity? 
 
Answer
 
With regard to the increase in the maximum ceilings for "de minimis" aid, they were set at low levels 
(€3.000 per enterprise over 3 years) at the time of  their introduction in 2004. Nevertheless, and in 
view of the fact that in the fishing industry, th e catching sector remains the dominant one and given 
the high capital value of average EU fishing firms, it was found that a level could permitted without 
jeopardising the overall objectives of the Common Fisheries Policy. In this regard it should be 
underscored that the regulation allo wing for such maximum ceilings excludes any type of aid that 
would risk increasing fleet capacity such as for the pu rchase, construction or modernisation of fishing 
vessels. The package adopted in 2008 was the response to devel opments in the oil market that lead to an oil 
price that more than quintupled in the period 20 02 (USD 20 per barrel) to June 2008 (over USD 
140 per barrel). It is widely acknowledged that the continued rise in oil prices, which took remarkable 
proportions over recent months, put a very heavy pressure on the fishing sector worldwide.  
Fisheries was not the only sector suffering from probl ems due to high oil prices, but the fisheries 
problem is specifically complex because of the constr aints arising from the fact that the fishing fleet 
suffers from systemic overcapacity aggravated by low catch opportunities compared to the past. 
Furthermore, fish prices have stagnated to a great extent and the vast majority of fishing companies 
are small and medium enterprises (SMEs). High o il prices remain a structural problem which 
requires structural remedies. 
However, short term actions had also to be cont emplated to ensure that the fishing sector was not 
completely wiped out. This lead to the adoption of  an emergency package to address the immediate 
situation of economic and social hardship of the EC fisheries industry and, at the same time, make a  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 247 
 
 
 lasting contribution to tackling structural problems such as systemic overc apacity in some fisheries 
and fleet segments.  The structural interventions incl uded in the package were therefor e essential in relation to addressing 
the overcapacity issue thus helping improvements  in the resource base and reducing the dependency 
on fuel and increasing the value of fish on the market. 
For a reply to question 6 please ref er to the following documents:  
"Commission Regulation (EC) No. 875/2007 of 24 July 2007 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to de minimis aid in the fisheries sector and amending Regulation (EC) No. 1860/2004" "Communication from the Commission to the Eur opean Parliament and to the Council on promoting 
the adaptation of the European Union fishing fleets to  the economic consequences  of high fuel prices" 
COM/2008/0453 final, of 8 July 2008  "Council Regulation (EC) No 744/2008 of 24 July 2008 instituting a te mporary specific action aiming 
to promote the restructuring of the European Co mmunity fishing fleets affected by the economic 
crisis" published in the EU's Official Jour nal issue L 202, of 31.7.2008, p. 1–8. 
"Proposal for a Council Regulatio n instituting a temporary specific  action aiming to promote the 
restructuring of the European Union fishing fleets a ffected by the economic crisis" COM/2008/0454 
final, of 8 July 2008 All the documents are available at the at the EC's Commission website (Directorate General for 
Maritime Affairs and Fisheries):  http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp_en.htm 
 
Question 7 
Fisheries (WT/TPR/S/214, p. 113, para 60) 
The Secretariat report notes that the "the EC fl eet capacity exceeds maximum sustainable catches by a 
factor of two to three…Over 80% of the EC fl eet comprises small-scale coastal fishing boats…" (See 
WT/TPR/S/214, p. 113, para 60). Could the EC pl ease elaborate on how it defines its ‘small scale 
sector’?  What it is doing to a ddress over capacity in this sector? 
 
Answer
 
Small-scale coastal fishing is only defined as such in relation to conditions to be fulfilled to benefit 
from certain types of financial support granted in the context of the EC's European Fisheries Fund. 
"Small scale fishing" is then defined as fishing carried out by fishing vessels of an overall length of 
less than 12 metres and not using towed gear.  Plea se refer to Article 26 of Council Regulation (EC) 
No. 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on  the European Fisheries Fund, p ublished in the EU's Official 
Journal issue L 223, of 15/08/2006, p. 1-44. For the second part of the question please refer to the documents mentioned under the answer to 
question 6.  
Question 8 
Fisheries: Common Fisheries Policy Reform (See WT/TPR/S/214, p. 114, para 63.) 
Can the EC explain how it envisages reforming the structural elements of the Common Fisheries 
Policy, in particular the subsidy regime and th e management of fishing capacity inside and beyond 
Community waters (See WT/TPR/S/214, p. 114, para 63)? 
 
Answer
 
The EC Commission has started a review of the Co mmon Fisheries Policy to make it more efficient in 
ensuring the economic viability of the European fleet s, conserving fish stocks, integrating with the 
Maritime Policy and providing good quality food to consumers. The review was launched at an 
informal Council meeting on 29 September 2008 on basis of a working paper by the Commission with 
an initial analysis and discussion of some options for reform.  The review will be based on an analysis of the achi evements and shortcomings of the current policy, 
and will look at experiences from other fisheries management systems to identify potential avenues for WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 248  
 
 future action. The analysis and the evaluation of options for a reform will be enriched and validated 
through targeted consultations with stakeholders and a broad public consultatio n, which is scheduled 
for 2009.  After the public debate the Commission will develop a proposal to be presented to the Council and the European Parliament with a view to  adoption for a reform to be in effect from 2013. 
A copy of the aforementioned Commission's working paper can be found at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/review_en.htm  
Question 9 
Intellectual Property (WT/TPR/S/214, pp.92-93, paras 195-196) 
Paragraphs 195 and 196 of the Secretariat’s re port on the European Communities’ Geographical 
Indications regime suggest that the European Commis sion would be the "final ar biter" in the event of 
either a "failure of a conciliation procedure betw een parties"; and that it would be the Commission 
that "takes a decision whether to grant a GI" following  the parties’ attempt to find an amiable solution 
(See WT/TPR/S/214, pp.92-93, paras 195-196).  Can the Commission confirm that it is indeed the "final arbiter", or, in light of the powers envisag ed in Article 7 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 
28 June 1999, would it be more accurate to say that EU Member States are the final arbiters by virtue 
of their representation on the Regulatory Co mmittee established under Article 5 of the 
Decision 1999/468/EC?  
Answer
 
The term "arbiter" appears to be inappropriate bot h with regard to the role of the Commission and 
that of Member States. 
The Commission is assisted by a regulatory committee  composed of the representatives of the Member 
States and chaired by the representative of the Co mmission. The representative of the Commission 
submits to the committee a draft of the measures to be adopted. The committee delivers its opinion on 
the draft. The opinion is delivered by the majority laid  down in Article 205(2) of the Treaty in the case 
of decisions which the Council is required to  adopt on a proposal from the Commission.  
The Commission must, without prejudice to Article  8 of the above Decision, adopt the measures 
envisaged if they are in accordance w ith the opinion of the committee. 
If the measures envisaged are not in accordance with  the opinion of the committee, or if no opinion is 
delivered, the Commission must, without delay, submit to the Council a proposal relating to the measures to be taken. 
The Council may act by qualified majority on the propos al.  If within the period provided for in 
Council Decision 1999/468/EC the Council has indica ted by qualified majority that it opposes the 
proposal, the Commission shall re-examine it. It ma y submit an amended proposal to the Council, re-
submit its proposal or present a legislative proposal on the basis of the Treaty. If on the expiry of that 
period the Council has neither adopted the proposed im plementing act nor indicated its opposition to 
the proposal for implementing measures, the propo sed implementing act shall be adopted by the 
Commission.   Question10 Intellectual Property (See WT/TPR/S/214, p.92, para 195) 
Paragraph 195 of the WTO Secretariat report notes th at the process of application and objection to 
registration of Protected Geographical Indications  (PGI) is now open to producer groups in third 
countries (See WT/TPR/S/214, p.92, para 195).  New Zealand would be grateful for clarification of 
two elements of the body text of Article 13(1)  of Council Regulation 510/2006 of 20 March 2006: 
 
• How does the Commission determine whethe r an agricultural product or foodstuff 
contains a name which is considered generic?   
• In the event the Commission determines a name  is generic, how is this information 
registered or notified within the EC?   
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 249 
 
 
 Answer  
Article 13(1) of Council Regula tion 510/2006 of 20 March 2006 notably provides that if a registered 
name ("a b") contains the name of an agricultural product or foodstuff which is considered generic 
("a"), the registration of "a b" does not impede the use of the generic name "a" on an appropriate 
non-registered product. 
 
In most cases, those generic t erms correspond to terms used in the common language to designate a 
type of product (for instance, "lamb" within the registered name "Shetland Lamb") and are not 
debated.  
However, should the question arise as to whether a term may be considered as generic, the same 
criteria apply as those laid down in art. 3 of Regulation 510/2006. According to the latter, to establish whether or not a name has become generic, account mu st be taken of all factors, in particular: (a) the 
existing situation in the Member States and in area s of consumption; (b) the relevant national or 
Community laws. 
 
If the Commission is to take position regarding the use of a term ("a") that may be generic within a 
multi-termed geographical indication ("a b"), it may sp ecify in the decision related to the registration 
of that geographical indication that the registration of "a b" does not prevent the use within the Community of the term "a".  
 
Question 11 Technical Barriers to Trade (WT/TPR/S/214, p.57, para 69) 
Paragraph 69 of the WTO Secretariat report highl ights that third country conformity assessment 
bodies (CABs) may take part in the EC’s confor mity assessment activities through mutual recognition 
agreements (MRAs), including that with New Zealand (See WT/TPR/S/214, p.57, para 69).  As noted 
later in this paragraph, these MRAs normally follow a sector-by-sector (vertical) approach.   
 In recent years, the international accreditation in frastructure has grown significantly, with peer 
recognition schemes under the auspices of the In ternational Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation 
(ILAC) and International Accreditation Forum (IA F) spanning much of the globe.  ILAC membership, 
for example, represents over 70 economies and re gional organisations.  EC Member States’ own 
accreditation bodies participate fully in these multilateral arrangements (MLAs).  Through 
mechanisms such as regular co mpetency assessments, these MLAs  underpin confidence in the 
conformity assessment results of CABs accredited by ILAC or IAF MLA signatories.    In light of these developments, has the EC consider ed a horizontal rather than vertical approach, 
which would recognise the competence of all CABs accredited by an ILAC or IAF signatory 
accreditation body?   
Answer
 
Pursuant to Regulation (EC) 765/2008 of the Euro pean Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 
setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of 
products57, where EC product legislation requires third-par ty conformity assessment, accreditation is 
the preferred method of determining that a confor mity assessment body (CAB) meets the applicable 
requirements to carry out a specific c onformity assessment activity.   
 Only CABs established under the national law of an EU Member State are eligible for becoming 
"notified bodies" for the purposes of the relevant  EC "New Approach" pr oduct legislation.  
 
                                                     
 
57 OJEU L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 250  
 
 Under Regulation 765/2008, each Member State must appoint a single national accreditation body, 
unless it considers that it is not economically meani ngful or sustainable, in which case it may have 
recourse to the national accreditation body of an other Member State. National accreditation bodies 
of the EU Member States should be members  of the European Co-operation for Accreditation (EA), 
which is the body recognised as providing the sup port infrastructure to the new EC accreditation 
framework.  
 Where a CAB requests accreditation, as a general ru le it should do so with the national accreditation 
body of the Member State in which it is establis hed. Article 7 of Regulation 765/2008 defines a 
number of exceptions to this principle where accred itation may be requested to an accreditation body 
of a Member State other than the Member State in which the CAB is established. 
 Accreditation by an accreditation body outside the European Economic Area (EEA) does not confer 
any specific additional rights per se regarding the acceptance of a CAB as a notified body under EC 
product legislation. 
 
In should nevertheless be observed that, in addition to the possibilities offered by the MRAs which the 
EC has concluded with a number of countries, there are several possi bilities for third-country CABs 
to participate in the conformity assessment activ ities under applicable EC product legislation.  
 First
, third-country CAB's subsidiaries established in an EU Member State are eligible for 
designation as a Notified Body for the purposes of th e EC "New Approach" product legislation. In 
this case if accreditation is used by the notifying aut hority of the Member State in which the CAB in 
question is established to back up the designation d ecision, accreditation should be requested with the 
national accreditation body of that Member State. Only in certain cases provided for in Article 7 of 
Regulation 765/2008, accreditation may be requested with a national accreditation body of a Member 
State other than the Member State in which the CAB is established. 
 Second
, designated Notified Bodies can subcontract specific tasks connected with conformity 
assessment under private contractual  agreements. This includes the po ssibility of subcontracting to 
third-country CABs and testing labor atories. Under these arrangements,  Notified Bodies must ensure 
that the subcontractor or subsidiary meets the t echnical competence requirem ents relating to Notified 
Bodies and retain full responsibility for the tasks perfor med by subcontractors or subsidiaries. Third-
country CABs and testing laboratories holding accreditation certificates under IAF or ILAC will generally be presumed to fulfil those technical competence requirements and therefore be able to 
enter into subcontracting arrangements with EC Notified Bodies.    
Third
, where international private sect oral voluntary arrangements for the recognition of test results 
supported by ILAC/IAF accreditation are in place, su ch as the IECEE CB scheme on the safety of 
electrical equipment or the IECEx scheme on the safety  of equipment used in explosive atmospheres, 
such arrangements are widely used by Europe an CABs, in relation to both the voluntary or 
mandatory third-party certification, and thus pr ovide a great potential for trade facilitation. 
 
Question 12 Technical Barriers to Trade (WT/TPR/S/214, p.58, para 71) 
A new requirement for Member States to establi sh Product Contact Points is highlighted in 
paragraph 71 of the Secretariat’s report (See WT/TPR /S/214, p.58, para 71).  New Zealand sees this 
as a positive development, which could make a si gnificant contribution to both reducing business 
transaction costs and improving transparency.  Th e text states that competent authorities will be 
obliged to provide certain information on technical  regulations to operators .  We would appreciate 
clarification that overseas operators wishing to expo rt products to any of the Member States, and 
therefore needing the same information on product requirements, will be able to access the Contact 
Points on the same terms as domestic  operators.   We would appreciate receiving the contact details of  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 251 
 
 
 the Contact Points – will there be a single web page on the Europa site that lists all of them for ease of 
access?  
Answer
 
Overseas operators willing to export their product into the European Union are entitled to contact the 
Product Contact Point under equal c onditions as domestic operators.  The Product Contact Points’ 
details will be available on the Europa website from13 May 2009. 
 
Question 13 
Services (WT/TPR/G/214, p.134, para 114) 
 What is the EC's position on making future multilateral commitments in private education 
services given the interest in this area of some of its own member states, yet the relatively low current 
level of commitments (See WT /TPR/G/214, p.134, para 114)? 
 Answer
 
This question relates to the DDA negotiation and we  consider that a detailed discussion should better 
be undertaken in that context. However, the EC unde rlines that through its 2005 DDA revised offer, it 
tabled extensive commitments for privately funde d educational services covering primary, secondary, 
higher and adult education in the four modes of su pply. The EC believes that  the commitments offered 
already meet its partner's main int erests in the educational services area. 
 
HONG KONG, CHINA  
 
Tariffs 
(WT/TPR/S/214, P. 39, Para. 16) 
 Question 1 
We note that the amount of tariff lines that carry "n uisance" applied tariff rates of less than 2% has 
increased from 9.4% in 2006 to 9.6% in 2008.  We would like to know whether the EC has plans to eliminate such nuisance tariffs to facilitate trade. 
 
Answer
 
The increase in the number of tariff lines whose duty is lower than 2% reflects changes in the 
nomenclature rather than actual ch anges in the rates applied by the EU. The EU considers that such 
duties can only be eliminated in a round where other parties shall reciprocate such concessions.  
 Technical Barriers to Trade (WT/TPR/S/214, P. 56-60, Paras. 63-77) 
 
Question 2 
We notice that a number of complicated techni cal regulations have been introduced, which pose 
administrative and financial burden for businesses, especially small and medium enterprises in 
exporting to the EC market.  Has the EC introduced any measures to assist overseas 
manufacturers/traders to comply with these require ments?  Is there any plan to simplify the 
administrative procedures to lower the cost for businesses?  Answer
 
The EC has taken a number of initiatives in recen t years to provide guidance to developing country 
companies, and in particular small and medium enterprises, who are ex porting (or wish to export) to 
the European Union. One example is th e Export Helpdesk for Developing Countries 
(http://exporthelp.europa.eu/index.html), which is an online service provided by the European 
Commission, to facilitate market access for developing  country exporters to the European Union. This WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 252  
 
 service provides a wealth of detailed information on a specific product basis  (d efined by HS code) on 
import tariffs, EU import regulatory requirements (such as SPS, labeling, marketing etc. ), as well as 
customs documentation, rules of origin or trade statistics.   
In addition, both the EC and its Member States a re funding a wide variety of TBT-related technical 
assistance programmes for developing and least developed countries. The EC provides a yearly 
update on these activities to the TBT Committee (latest submission dates from December 2008 - 
please see document ref. G/TBT/W/303).  
In addition, the extensive regulatory impact assessmen ts that accompany any EC legislative proposal 
analyses in detail the economic impact on SMEs (the so -called "SME Test") in terms of additional 
operating costs, administrative burdens relating to  compliance requirements and, more generally, any 
factor affecting the conduct of business by SMEs . For additional details, please refer to the Better 
Regulation pages on the Europa website:  http://ec.europa.eu/governance/be tter_regulation/index_en.htm 
 Internal Market Integration for Services 
(WT/TPR/S/214, P. ix, Para. 15; P. 133-134, Paras. 109-112; WT/TPR/G/214, P. 16, Para. 55) 
 Question 3 
At the last TPR, the EC advised that once the Services Directive wa s incorporated into the national 
legislation of its Member States and implemented, the remaining legal and administrative barriers to 
the development of EC-wide services markets woul d be by and large removed, thus offering new 
opportunities that would benefit the EC’s trading partne rs.  In this connection, would the EC enlighten 
us as to the benefits that its internal market integr ation has brought to its trading partners in terms of 
market access and trade environment, particularly in respect of the financial services, telecommunications, postal and transport services sectors? 
 
Answer
 
The implementation of the services directive will in crease competition, opening and efficiency in the 
internal European services market to the benefit of the consumer.  
 The Services Directive does not apply to transport. Separate sectoral initiatives have been undertaken 
to achieve progressively the single market in transport. The objective has been achieved for air and maritime transport services, and is progressing in road and rail.  
The Services Directive does not apply to financial servi ces. Separate sectoral initiatives have been 
undertaken to progressively achieve a single market in this sector, including insurance and banking, 
securities, investment funds and retail finance. The Services Directive does not ap ply to telecom services. Separ ate sectoral initiatives have been 
undertaken to achieve progressively the single ma rket in for all telecommunications services. 
 
EC-25 Consolidated Schedule of Specific Commitments (WT/TPR/S/214, P. 134, Para. 113)  Question 4 
As set out in the Secretariat Report, certification of the EC-25 consolidated schedule of specific 
commitments was completed in De cember 2006, and the schedule will enter into force following the 
completion of the internal decision-making procedure of the EC and its Members, where applicable.  Now that more than two years have lapsed, woul d the EC advise us on the progress of its internal 
processing, and the expected timeframe for the co mpletion of the procedure for the consolidated 
schedule to enter into force? 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 253 
 
 
 Answer  
So far, 14 EU Member States out of the 25 concerned  completed their national ratification procedures 
(Austria, Germany, Denmark, Hungary, Greece, La tvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, 
Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the UK).  
Subject to their respective constitutional requirem ents, those EU Member States, whose national 
ratification procedures are not yet completed, are doi ng their outmost to comple te such procedures as 
soon as possible. Additionally, also with a view  to further accelerate to national ratification 
procedures, the European Commission requested an opinion from the European Court of Justice, 
aimed at clarifying, among other issues, whether such national ratification by the EU Member States 
is really necessary.  
All these extensive efforts by the EU Member States and by the European Commission are in line with 
the relevant provisions of the letters sent to the affected WTO member s, under which the EC 
endeavoured to accelerate the internal appr oval procedures as much as possible.   
 
MARITIME TRANSPORT SERVICES (WT/TPR/G/214, P. 8, PARA. 17) 
 
Question 5 
We note that the EC has implemented an Integr ated Maritime Policy which aims at enhancing 
Europe’s capacity to face the challenges of gl obalization and competitiveness, climate change, 
degradation of the maritime environment, maritime safety and security, and energy security and sustainability.  We would appreciate the EC’s comme nts on how this Policy may impact on the further 
liberalization of the EC’s maritime transport services and logistics services. 
 Answer
 
In adopting an Integrated Maritime Policy for the EU, the Commission has set out a detailed action 
plan for the years ahead. It is conceived to seize the opportunities that the seas offer, whether that be 
scientific discoveries, technological development, globalisation, and environmental matters, and to 
tackle these challenges in an integr ated manner. It aims to generate growth, jobs and sustainability. 
The approach was defined after extensive public consultation  
 Before the adoption of the Integrated Maritime Policy, different maritime activities and policies 
relating to the seas were managed on largely sector al lines. An integrated maritime policy changes 
the way policy is formulated and decisions taken in  the maritime sectors. It will enable the relevant 
authorities to analyse interactions between the va rious sectors and policy areas concerned and to 
take them into account at every level so as to  develop common tools to exploit synergies and avoid 
conflicts. The Policy is accompanied by an Action Plan which is  also publicly available. The range of concrete 
actions to be launched include: 
A European Maritime Transport Space without barriers  
A European Strategy for Marine Research  
National integrated maritime policies to be developed by Member States  An integrated network fo r maritime surveillance  
A Roadmap towards maritime spatial planning by Member States  Elimination of pirate fishing and destructive high seas bottom trawling  
Promotion of a European netw ork of maritime clusters  
A review of EU labour law exemptions for the shipping and fishing sectors  A European Marine Observation and Data Network  A Strategy to mitigate the effects of Climate Change on coastal regions.   
As concerns the liberalisation of maritime transpor t services and related logistics services, the first 
initiative above is pertinent. In maritime transport, voyages from one port of an EU Member State to WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 254  
 
 another are always considered international even when  the cargo transported c onsist of goods in free 
circulation ("Community goods").   The European maritime transport space without ba rriers is a concept which extends the Internal 
Market wider to intra-EU maritime transport th rough the elimination or the simplification of 
administrative procedures in intra-EU maritime tran sport, in order to enhance its attractiveness and 
reinforce its efficiency and competitiveness, and cont ribute to a higher protection of environment. 
 To implement this concept, the Commissi on identified a series of measures to pursue: 
 
i)  Elimination of systematic controls and documentary requests by customs for goods 
  carried by sea between EU ports in line with inland transport. The measure will  
  require amodification of the implementing provision of the Community customs code 
  and should be in force by 2010;  ii) Speeding up of documentary checks concerning legislation on veterinary and  
  phytosanitary products, through the adoption of guidelines; 
iii) Rationalisation of vessel-related and goods -related reporting and forms required by 
  Directives 2002/6/EC (formalities for vessels at the arrival/departure of ports),  
  2000/59/EC (waste and residue reception), 2002/59/EC (vessel monitoring) and    Regulation 2004/25/EC (maritime secur ity) through a legislative proposal.  
iv) Examination of the possibility to gr ant facilitation to ships sailing between  
  Community ports but making a call in a port located in a third country or a free zone;  
v)  Enhancing the electronic transmission of administrative data through the deployment   of e-maritime systems;  vi) Evaluating the feasibility of recognising th e equivalence of maritime rules and rules 
  for road/rail for the carriage of dangerous  goods in view to facilitate intermodal  
  transport. 
 Trade Facilitation (WT/TPR/G/214, P.12-13, Para. 36) 
 
Question 6 
We note that the EC will be working to update th e rule-book that standardizes on a uniformly high 
level customs and border agency rules and practi ces relating to GATT Articles V, VIII and X for all 
WTO Members.  We would appreciate it if the EC could share more details of its work with us in this 
regard. 
 
Answer
 
The reference is made to the wo rk in WTO negotiations on trade facilitation. In this context the EC 
and all WTO members are working to come up with a set of commitments on trade facilitation, based 
primarily on articles V, VIII, and X GATT: this is the "rule book" in question. 
 
THAILAND  
 
WTO Secretariat Report (WT/TPR/S/214)  III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure (2) Measures directly affecting imports ( ii) Tariffs (a) Common customs MFN tariff 
 
PER RANGE AND SEASONAL TARIFFS  
The Secretariat Report (paragraphs 14 and 15) mention that the EC applies "per range tariffs", which 
vary according to given c.i.f. entry price ranges to a number of products and "seasonal tariffs" to  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 255 
 
 
 certain products, mainly agricultural products. In th is regard, entry prices apply to some agricultural 
products (e.g. tomatoes, cucumbers, courgettes, citr us fruits, grapes, apples, pears, apricots, peaches, 
cherries, plums, fruit juices, and certain wines) and vary according to the season. 
 
Question 1 
Please provide information on the products that are s ubject to seasonal tariffs and per range tariffs and 
the current seasonal and per range tariffs applied on these products. 
  
Answer  
Up to and including 1994, imports of 15 differen t fresh fruit and vegetables were subject to the 
reference price regime. In this regime, on top of the ad valorem duty, a specific duty could be levied 
for products imported from a given origin, when the a verage price of all imports  from this origin was 
below a given reference price. The specific duty was proportional to the difference between the 
reference price and the average price of all imports from this origin.  
As of 1995, the reference price reg ime was replaced by the entry pr ice system which was accepted as 
part of the Uruguay Round agreement. It is conseque ntly bound. The three basic elements of this 
system, as specified in the agricultural schedule CXL, are:  1. for each product and for each seasonal peri od, the maximum specific duty ever calculated 
under the old system is consolidated into a fixed  maximum specific duty called the 'full tariff 
equivalent'; as such, and in accordance with the UR  agreement, the Commission is authorised to levy 
specific duties on all imports of the goods concerned; 
 2. for each product and for each seasonal period, a threshold entry price is fixed; consignments 
imported at a price above the threshold are not subj ect to any specific duty at all; as such, the 
Commission grants a permanent concession to importers who respect a price, which is, on average, 
equivalent to the price of the same product on the domestic market; 
 3. the maximum specific duty is levied only when the price of the consignment is below 92% of 
the threshold entry price; if the price of the co nsignment is between 100% and 92% of the full 
threshold entry price, the specific duty is progressi ve; it changes in steps of 2%, each of which 
corresponds with a 'price band' equal to 2% of the threshold entry price. 
 
Question 2 
What are the rationales in establishing the seasonal tariffs and per range tariffs systems? How are the 
price thresholds for each product under these two regimes structured?  
 
Answer
 
It is a bound system accepted by all parties in the Uruguay Round.  
 Question 3 
Please provide information on the level of protec tion for the products under the seasonal tariffs and 
per range tariffs systems in comparison with the bound tariffs. Does the EC have any kind of 
mechanism to ensure that the level of protecti on under these two tariff regimes will not exceed the 
bound tariffs? 
 
Answer
 
The level of protection for the products under the seasonal tariffs is bound. Consequently, it cannot 
exceed the bound tariff as it is the bound tariff.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 256  
 
 TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Customs valuation and rules of origin (b) Rules of Origin 
 
Question 4 
Para 38:  What is the timeline for finalizing the refo rm of GSP rules of origin?  As the new regulation, 
if it is adopted, would be implemented on the 1
st of January 2010, therefore we would like to allow 
reasonable time for our traders to be acquainted with it.  
Answer
 
The adoption of the proposal is scheduled for early autumn 2009. A reasonable period of time for 
economic operators, inter alia, those of the beneficia ry countries, to get acquainted with the new rules 
will be ensured. The Commission intends to laun ch an information and training process after 
adoption of the new rules sufficiently in advance of their implementation. 
 
Technical regulations and other technical requirements  Technical barriers to trade (TBT)  Question 5 
Para 72:  Could EC provide clarification on the legal status of nickel classifications in the 30
th and 31st 
ATPs in relation to the CLP Regulation? 
 
Answer  
The 30th and 31st ATPs amended Annex I to Dire ctive 67/548/EEC by introducing new and updated 
harmonised classifications. Annex I of Directive 67/548/EEC was repealed by the Classification, 
Labelling and Packaging Regulation (CLP Regulation 1272/2008, OJ L353/1, 31.12.2008) as of 
20 January 2009. All harmonised classifications from Annex I of this Directive have to be 
incorporated into Annex VI to the CLP Regulation 1272/2008.   With a view to transferring the harmonised classific ations contained in the 30th and 31st ATPs into 
Annex VI to the CLP Regulation, the Commission prepared a proposal for a first ATP to the CLP Regulation. Like the CLP Regulation itself, this ATP  will take the form of a Regulation and, therefore, 
be directly applicable throughout the EU.  Th e proposal was circulated to WTO members as 
documents G/TBT/N/EEC/151/Add.2, G/TBT/N/EEC /212/Add.3 and G/TBT/N/EEC/163/Add.2.  
 The harmonised nickel classifications will start applying when the 1st ATP of the CLP Regulation starts applying, which is curren tly foreseen for 1/12/2010.  
 
CONTINGENCY MEASURES   
The Secretariat Report (page 52, paragraph 53) notes  that AD measures can only be imposed if they 
are not against the wider interest of the EC economy, which is determined by the European 
Commission by weighing the interests of cons umers, "suppliers", "users", and the industry. 
 
Question 6 
Would the EC be willing to outline key elements that  have contributed to the weighing decision? In 
particular, when considering whether the imposition of  measures is in the Community interest, is there 
any methodology applied by the European Commission to weigh the interests of consumers, suppliers, 
users and the domestic industry? 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 257 
 
 
 Answer  
The Community interest test is a precondition to be applied inter alia in anti-dumping proceedings for 
the imposition of provisional and definitive meas ures. The Community interest test requires 
establishing whether there are compelling reasons acco rding to which measures would be contrary to 
the overall interest of the Commun ity. In this respect, the interests of all relevant economic operators 
which might be affected by the outcome of the investigation must be taken into account. These 
interests typically include those of the Community  industry, importers, users, consumers and traders 
of the product concerned and the analysis assess es the positive impact measures will have on some 
operators as opposed to the negative impact on others.  The Community interest test does not involve 
wider aspects such as foreign development policy considerations. 
 
The Secretariat Report (page 54, paragraph 56) notes that as at June 2008, 12 undertakings were in 
force.   
Question 7 
Since such undertakings contain both minimu m import price and the quantitative ceiling. Could 
European Commission provide some clarity on its quantitative restriction whether it is in line with 
WTO requirements under Article XI of GATT 1994?   
Answer
 
Undertakings and duties are anti-dumping measures with equivalent effect. Thus, to have both 
undertakings and duties is in full conformity with GATT. 
The calculation of new dumping margin on the review concerning the scope of measure since the underlying dataset has changed. 
 
Question 8 
Why would the EC leave the dumping margin untouch ed when it came to the review concerning the 
scope of measure and found the exclusion of product from the scope of measure?  
 
Answer
 
The question is not entirely clear. Normally, the dumping margin would change but it cannot be 
excluded that there are circumstances where the dumpi ng margin may stay the same. If there are 
specific cases being referred to we w ould be in a bett er position to reply.  
 
SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY (SPS) 
The Secretariat Report (page 62, paragraph 84) notes that a new system for pesticide maximum 
residue levels (MRLs) in food, which entered into force on 1 September 2008, consolidates the 
divergent national lists of MRLs a nd MRLs harmonized at the EC level, with the aim of, inter alia, 
eliminating inappropriate technical barriers to trade.   MRLs are specified for about 500 pesticides; for 
non-specified (other) pesticides, a default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg applies.  
Question 9 
The default maximum residue levels (MRLs) fo r non-specified (other) pesticides are set at 
0.01 mg/kg. We are concerned that those levels ar e probably too strict.  In this regard, we would 
appreciate the EC’s clarification on these points: 
• Which international standard s do these levels refer to? 
• Please explain the scientific reasons sup porting the MRLs for those pesticides. 
 
Answer  
The harmonisation has represented a big advance in terms of trade because it has clarified and 
simplified the MRL situation at the EC level. Theref ore, there is not any more "national MRLs". For 
all those non-specified substances, the EC does not  have enough information, especially concerning WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 258  
 
 the toxicological endpoints and residue trials. Therefore,  the EC is not able to set any MRLs different 
from the limit of determination (LOD) in order to  avoid any risk for potential European consumers. 
The EC will set MRLs for third countries (as im port tolerances) if it is requested by them in 
accordance with the articles 6 and 7 to Regulation 396/2005. 
 
COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY (CAP)  
The Secretariat Report (page 104, paragraph 27) notes that about two thirds of total EC rice imports 
take place under preferential conditions.  Imports of  Basmati rice are subject to special rules and 
controls for determining their origin. 
 
Question 10 
Thailand would like to ask the EC to consider tr eating Thailand’s husked Hom Mali rice in the same 
special category as certain husked rice of Basmati va rieties, thereby decreasing the duty applicable to 
imports of husked Hom Mali rice to be at zero.  Th e rationale behind this request is that prices of 
Thailand’s husked Hom Mali rice have significantly incr eased in recent years, closing to the prices of 
Basmati rice.  The current duty applicable to the imports of husked Hom Mali rice has put Thailand at 
a competitive disadvantage with regard to Basmati rice."  
Answer:
 
The EC is treating imports of rice from Thailand in accordance with the Ag reement, following Article 
XXVIII negotiations of GATT between the EC and WTO members. The present basmati regime is the 
result of negotiations carried with India and Pakistan.  
 FISHERY (paragraph 70, Page 116)  
Paragraph 70 states that "Some of the tariff quot as are subject to a reference price mechanism, 
whereby the benefit of the in-quota tariff is not gr anted if the import price is lower than the reference 
price fixed by the European Commission:  when this  is the case, the out-of quota tariff is applied."   
 
Question 11 
What are fishery products subject to TRQ and reference price mechanism?  
Answer
 
First of all the EC would like to clarify that reference prices may be fixed for the products subject to TRQs, or put otherwise, it is not obligatory to fix  such reference prices for products for which a TRQ 
has been opened (see Article 29 of Council Regul ation (EC) 104/2000 of 17 December 1999, Official 
Journal L 017, 21/01/2000 P. 0022 - 0052).  
In actual fact reference prices are fixed annually for a very limited number of fishery products. For 
2009 the list of the concerned products is included in the Annex to Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1307/2008 of 19 December 2008 fixing the ref erence prices for certain fishery products for the 
2009 fishing year Official Journal L 344 , 20/12/2008 P. 0037 – 0040. 
Hereunder is the list of the species appearing the annex of Council Regulation 1307/2008. Next to the 
species is mentioned the EC's Combined Nomenc lature Customs Code. Detailed information can be 
obtained at the following EC Commission's website  (Directorate General for Taxation and Customs 
Union): http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_c ustoms/dds/tarhome_en.htm. 
 
List of species: 
Herring of the species Clupea harengus ex03024000 Redfish (Sebastes spp.) ex03026931 and ex03026933  Cod of the species Gadus morhua ex03025010  Deepwater prawns (Pandalus borealis) ex03062310   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 259 
 
 
 Redfish (Sebastes spp.) Whole: ex03037935 ex03037937 ex03042935 ex03042939 
Cod (Gadus morhua, Gadus ogac and Gadus macrocephalus) and fish of the species Boreogadus saida ex03035210, ex0303 5230, ex03035290, ex03037941 ex03042929 
ex03049933  Coalfish (Pollachius virens) ex03042931 ex03049941  
Haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) ex03042933  
Alaska Pollack (Theragra chalcogramma) ex03042985  Herring (Clupea harengus, Clupe a pallasii) ex03041997 ex03049923 
 Question 12 
During the last five years, what is a proportion betw een in-quota rate and out-quota rate imposition for 
the imports of abovementione d products under quota?  
 
Answer
 
Information on what volume of imports could bene fit or not from the in-quota rate, depending on 
whether the import price was above, or below, th e reference price is not readily available. 
Nevertheless information on the utilisation rate of  each of the individual tariff quotas is publicly 
available at the EC's Commission website (Directo rate General for Taxati on and Customs Union): 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds/tarhome_en .htm for what relates to the customs duties and 
the tariff quotas applicable to the above mentioned products, and 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds/qotcau_en.htm for what relates to the use of the tariff 
quotas.  
PAKISTAN
 
 
II TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
5) Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
i) Overview:   
 
Question 1   
Para 25:  The EC continued to build upon its wide  network of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) 
with both developed and developing countries. It c onsiders its PTAs as part of a broader policy of 
promoting multilateralism.  Thus, a significant numb er of its negotiations are with, or encourage 
creation of, regional groupings.   EC is currently building upon its network of pref erential trading agreements with a number of 
countries both on reciprocal and non reciprocal basi s.  Such arrangements inherently impact the 
export interests of countries outside such arrange ment. Does  EC ,while making decision for such 
arrangements, takes into consideration this aspect? Would EC like to share any such study /research 
conducted for the benefit of the Membership?   
Answer
 
As stated in the EC's Global Europe Strategy, the EC's bilateral agenda primarily aims to ensure that 
any new FTA serves as a stepping stone and not a st umbling block for multilateralism. In order to 
have a positive impact both for the parties to an agreement and the broader international trading 
system, the Global Europe Strategy made the case for launching new competitiveness-driven, 
comprehensive FTAs pursuing far-reaching trade lib eralization. The EC thus seeks FTAs which are 
WTO compatible, comprehensive in scope and deep in terms of level of commitment, in both goods 
and services.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 260  
 
 III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports  viii) Technical Regulations And Other Technical Requirements:  
 Question 2 
Para 72: Under the TBT Agreement,  the EC and its Member States  notified the WTO of 140 measures 
in 2007 and 139 in 2008 (to 30 September) (Table III.7) .  A number of Members have raised concerns 
in the TBT Committee regarding technical regulati ons maintained or proposed by the EC or its 
Member States, which (could) act as unnecessary barri ers to trade in chemicals, wine products, toys, 
seal products, organic products, energy-using products , lighters, electrical and electronic equipment, 
and electrical cables. 
 
What are the details of TBT – related technical assi stance being provided by EC  to the developing and 
least developed countries?    
 
Answer
 
Both the EC and its Member States are funding a wide variety of TBT-related technical assistance programmes for developing and least developed count ries. The EC provides a yearly update on these 
activities to the TBT Committee. The latest submission dates from December 2008 - please see document G/TBT/W/303. 
 
IV TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR  1) Introduction  
 
Para 2 : As a result of the 2003 reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), centred on the 
move towards the Single Payment Scheme, the share of support under this Scheme increased from 1% 
of the total producer support estimate (€1.4 billion) in 2004 to 33% (€32.4 billion) in 2007.  At the 
same time, product-specific support linked to produc tion and/or prices, still exists, albeit at reduced 
levels.  Since the last TPR of the EC, reforms of  its CAP have continued to enhance the market-
orientation and competitiveness of the sugar, fru it and vegetables, and wine sub sectors. Export 
subsidies have been abolished for fruits, vegetables, and wine, and susp ended for sugar.  However, the 
EC continues to subsidize exports of a range of  agriculture products, including processed agricultural 
products.  Export subsidies for dairy produc ts were reinstated in January 2009. 
 
Question 3 
The EC decision on Export refunds for dairy products is expected to have a negative impact on export 
competitiveness and development of dairy sector in developing countries. Under the decision, the EC 
will provide subsidies of up to 50 percent of differe nce of domestic and inte rnational prices on dairy 
exports and increase subsidies by one third and on e half for frozen poultry and eggs, respectively. 
 It is pertinent to point out that as per Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration 2005, exports subsidies should be eliminated entirely by 2013, a commitmen t, which has been reflected in all subsequent 
versions of the negotiating text. The recent decision by  the EC comes at a time when it is important to 
resist pressures for increased support and protection in the wake of the global financial and economic 
crisis. Could the EC please inform the WTO me mbership of the timeframe to phase out the  recently 
reintroduced export subsidies, keeping in  view its international commitments? 
 
Answer
 
The EC remains committed in the DDA negotiations to  ensure a parallel elimination of all forms of 
export subsidies and disciplines on all export measures w ith equivalent effect to be completed by the 
end of 2013. This commitment is , however, conditioned on a successful completion of the Doha 
Round.   
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 261 
 
 
 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT  
4) Outlook   
 
Question 4 
Para 22: In the context of the marked slowdown in  global activity and the persisting turmoil in the 
financial markets, the Commission's interim fo recasts in January 2009 indicated a significant 
reduction in the EC-27's GDP growth rate, from 2. 8% in 2007 to 1% in 2008 and -1.8% in 2009. 
 Annual Real GDP growth of EC has declined from 2.8% in 2007 to 1% in 2008 and is expected to be 
–1.8% in 2009. Has EC done any study on the impact of its declining GDP & Imports on developing 
countries’ GDP & Exports? 
 
Answer
 
The EC has not so far completed any such studi es. Relevant analyses that Pakistan may wish to 
consult have nevertheless been done by other inter national organizations, the following being but a 
few examples: 
http://www.un.org/esa/policy/wess/wesp2009files/wesp2009.pdf http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2009/new030309a.htm http://www.intracen.org/womenandtrade/doc uments/Newfarmer_Wome n_and_Trade_Ma rch_4_2009.
pdf.  
As for the EC we do, of course, monitor closely th e situation and the developm ents in trade flows and 
trade policy around the world. Also, we have been  taking action to stimul ate demand and facilitate 
trade so that our and the global economy, including developing countries, can recover as rapidly as possible.(See http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance /focuson/focuson13254_en.htm for details of our 
response to the financial and economic crisis). We are committed to keep our markets open and to 
discourage other from reverting to protectionism  which would only exacerbate the negative impacts 
of weakened demand. 
 
IV TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR  
5) Services  i) Overview  
 
Question 5  
Para 114: The EC regime on trade in services w ith third (non-EC) countries is based on existing 
GATS commitments, as well as on regional and bilate ral agreements. Autonomous liberalization in 
trade in services may vary among Member States.  
What liberalization efforts have been made by th e EC, under bilateral arrangements, in the services 
sector? Have these arrangements benefited any deve loping countries? Some examples may please be 
provided? 
 
Answer
 
The EC signed on 15th October 2008 an Economic Partn ership agreement with the Cariforum 
countries. This agreement includes commitments  on trade on services, on a reciprocal and 
asymmetric basis. These commitments, combined with development enhancing regulatory provisions 
should contribute to the development of the Caribbean region.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 262  
 
 TURKEY I
 
 
Report by the EC  (WT/TPR/G/214)  
(3) Creating the Right Environment for Trade, Trade in energy and raw materials, page 15,  para. 48 
 
Question 1 
Could the EC provide more information on the new European Raw Materials Initiative launched in 
November 2008, specifically with regard to any sp ecific policies formulated or policy alternatives 
studied until now in order to (1) ensure access to raw materials from international markets  (2) to 
boost overall energy efficiency? 
 
Answer
 
The goal of the EU strategy on Raw Materials is to eliminate or reduce access restrictions in order to 
ensure continued supplies of raw materials and, beyo nd that, to maintain a level-playing field for EU 
economic operators. EU action is essentially targeted  at those trade-distortive measures that are 
taken with the deliberate purpose to advance and  indirectly subsidise their domestic downstream 
industries to the detriment of EU companies. The overall policy is based on ne gotiating relevant rules, 
such as bindings on export duties, provisions on dual pr icing, or disciplines on subsidies, competition 
and investment with trading partners where necessa ry. The effective enforcement and tackling of 
restrictions is equally called for. At the same  time building  alliances and raising awareness in 
bilateral and plurilateral fora, together with bila teral dialogues with countries applying restrictions 
as well as with countries sharing a common interest with EU forms part of the policy alternatives 
considered." 
 
(3) Economic Performance and Challenges Ahea d, EC response to tackle the financial 
 turmoil and the economic slowdown, para. 27, pp. 10  
Question 2 
The EC’s report mentions that on 12 December 2008, a recovery plan amounting to 200 billion Euros 
with temporary fiscal measure was approved. In this regard;  
1) Is there any decision on the part of the EC a bout how long the fiscal stimulus will be applied?  
 
Answer
 
In the face of the current economic crisis, th e Commission called for a co-ordinated European 
response. Such policy response has been elaborated in a European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP) 
which the Commission adopted in November, and the European Council approved in December last 
year.58 
The focus should now be on swift implementation of planned fiscal stimulus packages to avoid that the 
recession becomes entrenched. Public finance sustai nability remains crucial . Once the recovery takes 
hold, an orderly reversal of the ma croeconomic stimuli is warranted. 
 2) Does the recovery plan consist of any measure fo r trade finance or is there a separate plan for 
trade finance? If so, what are the specifics?   
Answer
 
The recovery plan acknowledges th e importance of trade finance, but does not elaborate on any 
concrete measures. Since the time of the recover y plan, endorsed by the December 2008 European 
Council, the importance of sustaining Trade Finance flows has been discussed in different fora, both 
in the EC context and internationally (the OECD, WTO, G7, G20). In February, the European 
                                                      
58 http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/president/pdf/Comm_20081126.pdf.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 263 
 
 
 Commission put forward an analysis of the situation on trade finance and suggested elements for a 
multilateral response, which were endorsed by th e Council. The Spring European Council also 
agreed to support a multilateral initiative on trade fin ance. Such an initiative is  expected to be agreed 
at the G20 summit of 2 April. For the EU, the key elements are: (i) strengthening multilateral 
financing; (ii) strengthening official action at natio nal level to increase trade financing, and (iii) a 
possible adjustment in multilateral rules, should this  prove necessary. As for measures at national 
level, many EU Export Credit Agencies have taken qu ick actions to increase their capacity, in order 
to step in where the private market has withdrawn.   
 
3) Is there any preliminary study or estimation, or  an early analysis by the EC about the impact 
of this stimulus package on domestic mark et and, the EC’s exports and imports?  
 
Answer  
We have not for the moment completed any study on the impact of stimulus packages on EC trade 
flows. 
 
4) Could the EC provide information on the measu res taken by the Member States in order to 
tackle the financial turmoil, if any?  
Answer
 
On 4 March the Commission reported on implementation of the EERP in a Communication to the 
Spring European Council  
(http://ec.europa.eu/commission_barroso/p resident/pdf/press_200 90304_annx_en.pdf). 
The Communication recognises that the key policy priority is to unblock credit channels and to 
rebuild confidence in financial markets in order to kick-start more normal levels of lending. The 
Communication identifies the need for banks to be transparent about their impaired assets as key to 
rebuilding confidence in financial markets. A common and coordinated European framework is 
essential to optimally deal with impai red assets and provide asset relief.  
The Communication also reports on the Commission's stock-taking of banks' recapitalisation and restructuring so far. Additionally, proposals for the reform of Europe's financial system were 
developed in the report by the High Level de Laro sière Group. On the basis of the work by the de 
Larosière Group, the 4 March Comm unication sets out a detailed roadmap and timetable for follow-
up work to reform financial market regulation and supervision.  
 
Report by the WTO Secr etariat (WT/TPR/S/214) 
(iii) Preferential trade agreements and arrangements, para. 38, pp. 23 
 
Question 3 
Given various preferential trade agreements conclude d or negotiated by the EC, does the EC have any 
specific study or policy to address erosion of MFN principle and preference erosion problem?  
Answer
 
The EC would like to note that it is in the natu re of multilateral trade liberalisation that as most 
favoured nation (MFN) tariffs are reduced, prefe rential access will be eroded. This is an on-going 
and continuous phenomenon. Moreover, it is important to recall that preferences are also affected by 
other policy changes, for instance, the unilateral EC decisions to change its agricultural policy, the 
signing of new free trade agreements or the deepenin g of its preferences under existing arrangements.  
 
We should not forget that the vast majority of developing countries have much more to gain from 
multilateral liberalisation than they lose from prefe rence erosion. Many studies have shown that 
preference erosion is likely to affect only limited num ber of countries and impacts will be fairly small 
in aggregate. Nevertheless, it is true that a sm all number of countries can be negatively affected.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 264  
 
 These tend to be small and/or poor countries, ofte n heavily dependent on a market which has been 
heavily distorted, like sugar or textiles.   Although the overall impact of preference erosion will be limited, the countries/regions that will lose out will need special measures to ensure that, in the medium term, their economies develop and are 
re-oriented to sectors in which their comparative advantages lie. This will enable them to exploit the 
new opportunities which the Doha Development Agenda will offer and ensure that they too gain from 
trade expansion.  Further information can be found at the following website: 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/do cs/2006/september/tradoc_129995.pdf:  
 
III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure (2) Measures Affecting Imports, (i) Customs 
 Procedures and documentation  
1) para. 7, pp. 35 The Secretariat’s report points out that as of July 1, 2009, the EC will require the traders to provide 
electronic advance information on imports and exports.  
 
Question 4 
Could the EC clarify if in the future, the EC in tends to establish a pre shipment control program 
similar to the CSI as implemented by the US? 
 
Answer
 
EC does not intend to establish a program similar to the US CSI program at the moment. However, in 
the future Economic Operators will be required to pr ovide pre-arrival safety and security electronic 
summary declarations to EU Customs administrations . These can be done on a voluntary basis as of 
the 1 July 2009 and will become compulsory as of 1 January 2011.  2) para. 13, pp. 37 
 
Question 5 
Could the EC provide details on the provisions of the customs cooperation agreements concluded or 
being negotiated, covering the mutu al recognition of security standards and supply chain security?  
 
Answer
 
To date, the EC has concluded specific customs cooperation and mutual administrative assistance 
agreements with Canada, China, India, Japan, Ko rea and US. Structured customs cooperation in the 
framework of broader trade agreements has been or being developed with the large majority of WTO 
members.  The security risks affecting global trade have ma de it necessary to introduce additional security 
measures world wide. A general compatibility between  these various  programs is ensured by the 
WCO SAFE Framework. The specific requirements ma y differ between the different security trade 
partnership programmes; the negotiations of mut ual recognition of security standards should ensure 
the equivalence of these schemes between trade partners. The recognition of equivalence and the 
pursuant benefits for traders are a majo r simplification and faciliates trade . 
EC has negotiated mutual recognition with Switzerland, Norway, US and Japan. 
It is expected that agreements with Switzerland and Norway will be applie d as from July 2009. 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 265 
 
 
 3) Box III.1, pp.38 
 
Question 6 
Could the EC explain the state of play with rega rd to its proposal to amend the Customs Convention 
on the International Transport of goods cove red by the TIR carnets (TIR Convention 1975)  
 
Answer  
A compromise on the EC proposal to amend the body  of the Customs Convention on the International 
Transport of goods covered by the TIR carnets (TIR  Convention 1975) was reached in February 2009 
and is expected to be endorsed in a forthcomi ng meeting of the Administrative Committee 2. 
 
TURKEY II  
 
Report by the Secretariat (WT/TPR/S/214) 
 
1) TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS  
Technical regulations and other technical requirements  Technical barriers to trade (TBT)  Question 1 
As highlighted in the Secretariat Report, the EC notified the TBT Committee of some technical 
regulations, on which a number of WTO Members, including Turkey, have raised concerns as they 
create unnecessary barriers to trade. Among them, Turk ey has keen interest on the classification of 
boric acid and sodium borates as toxic to reproduction (Category 2) under the 30
th ATP of Dangerous 
Substances Directive 67/548/EEC, which has b een put into force on 15 September 2008.  
 
Turkey voiced out its concerns on various occasions that the EC has not only ignored the criterion specified in Directive 67 /548/EEC, but also violated the relate d provisions of the TBT Agreement, 
in particular Article 2.2.  Turkey is of the view  that within the context of TBT Agreement, this 
classification does not have a legiti mate objective based on available scientific and technical data; it 
does not consider intende d end uses of borates, has the eff ect of creating unnecessary obstacles to 
and disguised restriction on international trade. Turkey has also submitted all scientific data and 
comprehensive studies, demonstrating that the borates have no reproductive toxicity, to the attention of EC authorities.   Turkey’s concern is that in addition to direct tr ade effects of the Directive 67/548/EEC on trade of 
borates, the Category 2 classification will also have sev ere implications over the other EU legislation, 
such as REACH, Marketing and Use Directive No 76/769/EEC, Classification, Labelling and 
Packaging (CLP) Regulation No 1272/2008, which potentially further restrict the trade of borates.   In this regard, could the EC explain:   
a) Whether it is thinking to reassess its technical regulation and remove borates and its 
derivatives from the list of dangerous substances under Directive 67/548/EEC, by considering data submitted by Turkey and recent Risk Assessment Report on Borates 
prepared for European Commissi on DG Enterprise and Industry
59? 
b) Which downstream EC legislation will be triggered by the Directive 67/548/EEC and what 
will be the consequences of this dow nstream legislation on borates trade? 
 
                                                      
59 The Borates study: "Assessment of the risk to Consumers from Borates and the impact of potential 
restrictions on their marketing and use" by RPA, November 2008.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 266  
 
 Answer
 
a) Could Turkey indicate to which data submitte d by Turkey they  refer to? The EC does not see 
the need to review the classification of borat es compounds from the Risk Assessment Report on 
Borates prepared for European Commission DG Ente rprise and Industry.  The EU classification and 
labelling system is a hazard based approach under which, a risk assessment is not required to 
establish the classification of a given substan ce, but instead a hazard assessment should be 
performed. So, even if  the risk assessment conc ludes that borates does not constitute a risk for 
consumers,  such conclusion has no impact on the current classification of borates. According to 
Article 37 of the CLP Regulation, if Member Stat es' Competent Authorities (MS CA) or industry 
would like to make proposals for classification or reconsideration of classification of substances 
already classified, they can do so following a clear assessment procedure. As stated in Article 37, 
only MS CAs can submit proposals for a revision of th e harmonised classificati on and labelling to the 
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). According to Article 37 (6) if industry has information which 
may lead to a change of the harmonised classificati on and labelling of a substance, it can submit such 
a proposal to the CA in one of the Member States in  which the substance is placed on the market. The 
submitted dossier must be drawn up in accordan ce with the relevant parts of the Regulation 
1907/2006 and assessed by the Committee for Risk Asses sment (RAC) of the Agency who must issue 
an opinion on the proposal within 18 months from th e date of receipt, giving the parties concerned the 
opportunity to comment.  The RAC will then fo rward its opinion and any comments to the 
Commission.   
b) A large number of EU Directives and Regula tions (e.g., Directive 99/45/EC concerning the 
approximation of the laws, regulations and administr ative provisions of the Member States relating to 
the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous preparations, Directive 96/82/EEC on the 
control of major-accident hazards involving dangerous substances, Directive 91/689/EEC on 
hazardous waste, Directive 98/24/EC on the protecti on of the health and safety of workers from the 
risks related to chemical agents at work, Dire ctive 2004/37/EC on the protection of workers from the 
risks related to exposure to carcinogens or mutagens at work, Directive 76/768/EEC on the 
approximation of the laws of the Member States re lating to cosmetic products, Directive 98/8/EC 
concerning the placing of bioci dal products on the market, Dir ective 91/414/EEC concerning the 
placing of plant protection products on the market, see: http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/documents/Classification-
Labelling/3199r5_ECB_Downstream_legislation.doc), in clude specific obligations if the substance in 
question is classified in accordance with Directive 67/548/EEC.  The 30th ATP amended Annex I to Directi ve 67/548/EEC by introducing new and updated 
harmonised classifications. The 30th ATP required dangerous substances to be properly labelled and 
packaged to prevent danger. Information on the dang ers of the substance and the precautions to be 
taken are transmitted by means of warning l abels containing standard symbols and phrases. All 
substances and mixtures placed on the EU market, wh ether produced within the EU or imported, are 
subject to the same classification and labelling requirements based on the same criteria. The 30th 
ATP harmonised the classification of the substan ces in the Annex with the aim of ensuring the 
functioning of the internal market on the basis of the best available scientific  information. As the 
classification of substances in itself does not imply restrictions on their use, EC considered the impact 
of the 30th and 31st ATP on trade as minimal. Th e proposal for the 30th ATP was notified to the WTO 
TBT Committee to give WTO members the opportunity  to submit comments. Various bilateral 
meetings also took place.  The EC has asked  industry and WTO members to substantiate their 
arguments on the negative impact on trade – to date, we have not received any information on this, 
except for some speculation about possible conse quences this classification could entail under 
REACH and other EC legislation.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 267 
 
 
 2) TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing Quantitative restrictions and licensing   Question 2 
It is mentioned in the report that "the EC main tains bilateral trade agreements regarding textile 
products with the following non-Members of the WTO: Belarus, Russian Federation, Serbia and 
Uzbekistan."  
a) What is the scope of the agreements with Russia and Uzbekistan? 
b) Is there any provision provided by these countri es for the textile products originated from EU 
Countries? 
 
Answer
 
Russia: Trade in Textile and Clothing (T&C) is included in the scope of the Partnership and 
Cooperation Agreement (PCA) currently in force between  the EC and Russia. Since the conclusion of 
the PCA in 1994 and its entering into force in 1997 the T&C sector has been governed by this 
Agreement. The bilateral textil es agreement mentioned in the 3030/93 Regulation has expired. 
Russia grants MFN treatment as set out in th e PCA to T&C products imported from the EU. 
 Uzbekistan: The bilateral textiles agreement expired on 31.12.2004. Since the beginning of 2005 
trade in Textile and Clothing produc ts is not subject to any quantitative restrictions. However T&C 
products of 8 categories (categories 1; 3; 4; 5; 6;  7; 8; 26) remain subject to a system of monitoring 
(double-licensing).   The PCA in force with Uzbekistan does not include the textiles and clothing sector. 
 
3) TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
Trade Agreements and Arrangements Preferential Trade Agreements and Arrangements   Question 3 
It is stated in the report that beneficiary count ries may be removed if they are bound to the 
Community by a preferential trade agreement that covers at least all the preferences provided under 
the GSP.  Could delegation of the EC inform us if so far the EC has ever removed any beneficiary country 
which is also a preferential trading partner, from its GSP regime? 
 
Answer
 
The GSP Regulation provides for the removal of a country from the list of beneficiary countries in 
Annex I, when it benefits from a preferential co mmercial agreement with th e Community which covers 
at least all the preferences provided by that scheme for that country.  
 
Chile60 and Moldova61 have been removed from th e GSP scheme in accordance with this provision of 
the Regulation.  
                                                      
 60 COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No. 566/2007 of 24 May 2007 removing the Republic of Chile 
from the list of beneficiary countries in Annex I to Council Regulation (EC) No. 980/2005 applying a scheme of 
generalised tariff preferences.  
61 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No. 55/2008  of 21 January 2008 introducing autonomous trade 
preferences for the Republic of Moldova and amending Regulation (EC) No. 980/2005 and Commission 
Decision 2005/924/EC. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 268  
 
 4) TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES 
Trade Agreements and Arrangements Preferential Trade Agreements and Arrangements   Question 4 
The report mentions that the special incentive a rrangement for sustainable development and good 
governance is open to countries that have ratified and effectively implemented the international 
conventions listed. 
 
Turkey would like to learn what kind of mechanism does EC have, to evaluate the required effective 
implementation of internati onal conventions in qualifying GSP beneficiary countries. 
 
Answer
 
The implementation of international conventions by  countries requesting GSP+ beneficiary status is 
evaluated following the procedure established by Article 9 and 10 of the GSP Regulation 
No. 732/2008. 
These provisions require that the applicant count ry submits its request for the GSP+ scheme, 
accompanied by comprehensive information concern ing inter alia the ratification of the GSP+ 
relevant conventions and the legislation and measures to implement the provisions of the conventions. 
When examining the submitted requests the EC's experts in the various fields covered by the 
conventions (human rights, labour rights, envi ronment and good governance) and responsible for the 
cooperation with relevant international organisatio ns (like the UN and the ILO) have to take into 
account the findings of these organisations. This ensures a most up to date assessment of the 
applications, based on the most recent available information.  Furthermore, the GSP Regulation en visages that the status of ratification and implementation of the 
conventions in the countries granted the GSP+ benefits, is kept under review. The EC's experts in 
human and labour rights, environment and good gover nance examine available information from the 
relevant monitoring bodies on an ongoing basis. Where circumstances justify, the GSP Regulation 
foresees that the Commission carries out  specific investigations to ch eck whether GSP+ criteria are 
still met.  At present two such investigations are ongoing, on El Salvador and Sri Lanka. 
 
5) TRADE POLICIES AND PRATICES BY MEASURE 
Measures Directly Affecting Imports 
Technical Regulations and other technical requirements   Question 5 
The report mentions some of the main trade concer ns raised in the TBT Committee as regards to the 
REACH regulation that is applied to the manufactur e, importation, placing on the EC market and use 
of chemicals by legal and natural persons. Could the EC delegation give an explanation as to whether there has been any impact analysis concluded over the REACH regulation in general and/or developing countri es based assessing the 
market access related results? Does EC intend to take steps as regards to pote ntial restrictive outcomes that may stem from non-
uniform enforcement of the REACH regulation among EC Member States? 
 
Answer
 
The proposal for REACH was the object of several impact assessments.  The conclusions of the 
assessments, which were made publicly available at the time, were duly considered to shape the final 
form of REACH.  It should be noted that the need to ensure that the obligations contained in the 
Regulation should not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to achieve the goals intended by the 
Regulation, notably the protection of human health  and the environment, was a main concern during 
the legislative process leading to the adoption of REACH.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 269 
 
 
 REACH is a Regulation and conseque ntly it applies directly throughout the EU, without the need for 
its transposition into national measures.  It follows that it is not legally possible for the EU Member 
States to depart from the content of the REACH Re gulation by adopting different national measures.  
While the practical enforcement of REACH is th e responsibility of the EU Member States, they are 
required to take due regard to the content of the Re gulation and may not depart therefrom.  The fact 
that different enforcement procedu res and different penalties may exist in the different Member States 
does not affect the principle of unifo rm application, nor can it lead to restrictions of trade, as Member 
States are required to ensure that such pena lties and enforcement methods are effective.   
 
Report by the EC (WT/TPR/G/214) 
1) Trade and Development  
Question 6 
Turkey appreciates the positioning of the EC to wards sustainable development. We have noted 
Sustainability Impact Assessments in the Govern ment report as one of the basic tools EC is 
effectuating to ensure coherence between trade liberalization and sustainable development.  
Does EC carry on similar type or/and any other analysis to measure the effectiveness of its GSP regime in the beneficiary countries?  
Answer
 
The EC carries out Impact Assessments for all major policy initiatives, the GSP as a trade instrument 
established in 2006 is not considered a new initiative.  To analyse the effectiv eness of the GSP regime 
in beneficiary countries, the EC assesses the exten t to which EU interventions are reaching the set 
policy objectives, and how performance can be impr oved in future through external independent 
evaluations.  Furthermore, Council Regulation (EC) No. 732/2008 (GSP Regulation) foresees the obligation of the 
European Commission to prepare a report covering th e preferential   incentive arrangement for 
sustainable development and good governance (GSP +) and EBA, and covering the period since 1 January 2006 with the objective to ex amine the effects of the GSP scheme. 
In relation to the GSP+ arrangement, the preparation of a summary report on the status of ratification in GSP+ beneficiary countries and ava ilable recommendations by relevant monitoring 
bodies is also foreseen by the GSP Regulation. 
 
2) Economic Performance and Challenges Ahead  
 
Question 7 
Taking into account the fact that the global economic  crisis continues to deteriorate, sweeping across 
countries all over the world, what additional policy measures does EC foresee to introduce in order to 
stabilise financial markets in the Member States? 
 
Answer
 
It is essential that we repair the credit channel. Fr om an economic perspective, the breakdown in the 
credit channel threatens to make the economic slowdown  even deeper and to weaken the effect of any 
counter-cyclical recovery measures.  
Asset relief interventions should be seen as an addi tional component to the existing rescue packages 
announced by EU Member States. They should be c onsistent with past measures with respect to 
design and accompanying behavioural conditions.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 270  
 
 3) Economic Performance and Challenges Ahead  
 
Question 8 
According to the report EC is of the view that the crisis has opened a window of opportunity to 
restructure the global governance system, includi ng the Bretton Woods institutions, to reflect 
geopolitical realities of the 21
st century. 
Could delegation of the EC kindly inform if there ha s been any initiative taken so far in that regard? 
 
Answer  
The so-called Group of Twenty, which includes th e nineteen largest national economies from all 
regions of the world and the European Union, met in Washington on November 15 2008 to discuss the 
international response to the global financial and economic crisis. The summit agreed on 47 action 
points, many of which were for implementation by end of March. The G20 will meet again at the London Summit on 2 April to build on the commitments made in 
Washington. This will be an important opportunity  to discuss the global responses to the crisis to 
restore financial stability and economic prosperity, incl uding the much needed reform of the global 
financial and regulatory system and the international financial institutions.  Four working group were established to help p repare the work for the next Leaders Summit on 2 
April in London, including one on the reform of the IMF (working Group 3) and on the World Bank and other Multilateral Developments Banks (worki ng group 4). The other two working groups are on 
enhancing financial regulation and transparency (w orking group 1) and on reinforcing international 
co-operation and promoting integrity in financial markets (working group 2).   
 At 14 March, G20 Ministers met in Horscham whe re they agreed further action to restore global 
growth and support lendi ng, and reforms to strengthen the global financial system, such as 
strengthening the international governance, the cr eation of colleges of supervisors for large cross 
border banks, the regulation of credit rating agen cies and hedge funds, and tackling non-cooperative 
jurisdictions. 
 
4) Bilateral and Regional Trade Relations  
 
Question 9 
The report underlines that the EC in accordance with  its Global Europe Strategy has decided to aim at 
a new generation of WTO compatible FTAs that extend beyond present agreements.  
We understand that the EC seeks a deeper level of  commitments through these new generation FTAs. 
Can EC give an explanation if that new strategy has ever been reflected so far to any of the ongoing 
FTA negotiations? If yes, could you please specify FTA  partners with which EC has aimed putting 
into practice its Global Europe Strategy? 
 
Answer
 
As Global Europe Strategy set outs, the EC aims  at FTAs which are WTO compatible, comprehensive 
in scope and deep in terms of the levels of commitments.  Particul ar emphasis is to be given to 
effective provisions to tackle regulatory and non-tari ff obstacles to trade. Furthermore, our FTAs aim 
to strengthen sustainable development.  
The Global Europe communication identified key potential trading partners. It states that "the key economic criteria for new FTA partners should be market potential (economic size and growth) and 
the level of protection against EU export interest s (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 t hat the preferential access to EU markets currently 
enjoyed by our neighbouring and developing country partners may be eroded. Based on these 
criteria, ASEAN, Korea and India emerge as prioriti es. They combine high levels of protection with 
large market potential and they a re active in concluding FTAs with EU competitors. Mercosur and  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 271 
 
 
 the Gulf Co-operation Council, with whom negotia tions are already ongoing) also have combinations 
of market potential and levels of protection which make them of direct interest to the EU."  As noted in our government report, this agenda has already translated itself into concrete initiatives 
in virtually all areas of trade policy. As regar ds FTA negotiations, the EC launched in 2007 trade 
negotiations with  South Korea, ASEAN countri es, and India. Negotiations are underway.  
 
UNITED STATES
 
 
WT/TPR/G/214: Report by European Communities 
 
Page 7, paragraph 15  
Regarding the EC Directive, "Promotion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources" (December 
2008) relating to "sustainability criteria," th e United States has the following questions: 
 Question 1  
When will the Commission make available to (1 ) the governments of key supplier countries and 
(2) private supplier groups or trade associations the data, analytical methods, and expert judgments 
used to establish its default Green House Gas (GHG ) emission savings values for various biofuels?  
Does the Commission plan to convene expert m eetings to discuss its data and methodologies?  
 
Answer
 
In 2007 the Commission organised a consultation exercise on how a biofuels sustainability scheme 
should be designed. On 23 January 2008 the Commi ssion proposed a Directive on the promotion of 
renewable energy which contains the 10% target  and a sustainability scheme for biofuels and 
bioliquids. The Council and the European Parlia ment reached an agreement on the Directive in 
December 2008. 
In the directive, the figures on the CO2 emissi ons where based on the most updated version of the 
"well-to-wheel study" of transport fuels produced by the JEC consortium (made up of Joint Research 
Center of the Commission (JRC) plus the research arms of the EU oil industry (CONCAWE) and car 
manufacturers (EUCAR), the three institutions well k nown for its independen ce, particularly on the 
biofuels issue. 
This study is considered by all to be the autho ritative source of data on the greenhouse gas impact of 
transport fuels (not just biofuels but also fossil fuels, hydrogen, etc.). The data are transparent and in the public domain at http://ies.jrc.ec.europa.eu/our-activities/support-to-eu-policies/well-to-wheels-analysis/WTW.html Because these data are both authoritative and transparen t, the EC relied on these data in calculating 
the default values in the Directive. 
In addition to the public consultation, the Commissi on held separate meetings with several biofuel 
producing countries as well as asked them for technical comments on certain aspects of the 
underlying technical data in the Directive relat ed to life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions. These 
comments are forwarded to the Commission’s Joint R esearch Centre (JRC), the technical experts that 
manage the data. 
The Commission will continue its open dialogue  and information exchange with 3rd countries, 
consumers/ producers and civil society and welcom es comments on the underlying technical data. 
 Question 2  
Regarding other environmental sustainability criteri a, will the EU publish metrics that more precisely 
identify highly biodiverse grasslands and hi gh carbon-content wetlands whose use would be 
prohibited from growing crops for biofuels production? 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 272  
 
 Answer
 
As is stated in the Directi ve, the Commission will establish the criteria and geographic ranges to 
determine which grassland shall be covered und er 'highly biodiverse grassland'. For wetlands, the 
definition in the Directive is already complete.  
Question 3 The EU Directive included only a limited set of GH G emission savings default values and not a more 
comprehensive set covering the full range of major supplying regions or nations.  When will the EU 
publish a more comprehensive set?  Answer
 
The legislator decided to confer power on th e Commission to further substantiate certain 
requirements in the Directive concerning biofuels su stainability criteria. This includes the possibility 
of adding more GHG emission savings default values. Such values should be based on data from independent, scientifically expert sources, such as the Joint Research Centre of the Commission, and 
be updated as appropriate as those sources progress their work. 
The Commission will encourage them to address,  when they update their work, emissions from 
cultivation, the effect of regional and climatological conditions, the effects of cultivation using sustainable agricultural and organic farming methods, and the scientific contribution of producers, within the Community and in third countries, and civil society.  
(3) Creating the Right Environment for Trade 
III. Key Developments in the EC’s Trade Policy (2007 – 2008)  Question 4 Page 11, paragraph 30:   
The EC states that a proposed comprehensive review  of the single market will consider widening its 
regulatory reach outside the borders of the EU.  Ple ase elaborate on this proposal and, in particular, 
please identify the methods by which the Commission in tends to extend its regulatory reach and detail 
any activities that it has taken during the review period – or proposes taking in the next period – to 
implement this proposal. 
 
Answer
 
A wealth of information on the Single Market Review is available on the Europa web page at : http://ec.europa.eu/internal_m arket/strategy/index_en.htm 
 For an overview of the current state of play, reference if made to the European Commission Staff 
Working Paper of 16 December 2008 "The Single Ma rket Review: one year on", available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_marke t/strategy/docs/smr_oneyear_en.pdf. 
 Regarding the external dimension of the Single Ma rket Review specifically, the Commission Staff 
Working Paper of 17 November 2007 takes stock of existing activities and provides an outlook of future priorities and related actions: 
http://ec.europa.eu/citizens _agenda/docs/sec_2007_1519_en.pdf. 
 Protecting Intellectual Property Rights  Question 5 
 
Page 14, paragraph 45:   
The EC reports that the Council Resolution of 25 September 2008 on a comprehensive EU anti-
counterfeiting and anti-piracy plan requests that th e Commission "take actions."  Please describe the  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 273 
 
 
 status of the requested actions in support of a comprehensive EU anti-count erfeiting and anti-piracy 
plan. 
 
Answer  
In its Resolution the Council invited the Commission to continue its efforts to make the system for 
protecting IPR more efficient in order to com bat counterfeiting and piracy more effectively. 
To do so, it invited the Commission to set up a European counterfeiting and piracy observatory. This observatory was officially launched on 2 April 2009.  The Council also invited the Commission to 
disseminate information to those involved in combatin g these phenomena and to raise awareness 
among the public. These two actions will also  be partially covered by the observatory.  
The Council invited the Commission jointly with EU Members States to submit an anti-counterfeiting 
custom plan for the years 2009-2012. This plan was published in the Official Journal on 25 March. 
The Council also invited the Commission jointly with  EU Members States to set up a network for the 
rapid exchange of information on counterfeit goods, to promote coordination between institutions and 
to study the effectiveness of the EU legal framework. 
The Commission has started to study how to b est approach the setting up of the rapid exchange of 
information in order to avoid duplication of efforts with existing systems and practices and to optimise synergies. Discussions between the Commission and Member States have started on the effectiveness of the legal 
framework and a report on the implementation by Member States of Directive 2004/48/Ec on the civil enforcement of IPR is foreseen for the last quar ter 2009. Finally, the Council invited the Commission 
and Member States to reinforce the protection int ernationally. The active participation of the 
Commission and Member States to the ACTA negotiations is one of examples.       Question 6  
Page 14, paragraph 46:  
According to the EC’s report, one objective of th e EC strategy for the enforcement of intellectual 
property rights is to "increase awareness and st rengthen cooperation between EC Member States and 
with stakeholders."    Please describe the EC’s plans for increasing aw areness and strengthening cooperation regarding 
enforcement of intellectual property rights (i) am ong EC Member States and (ii) with stakeholders. 
 Answer
 
To increase awareness and strengthen cooperation be tween EC Member States and with stakeholders 
will be one of the tasks of the observatory.  Please see the answer to question 7.  
 
Question 7  
In this paragraph, the EC refers to the estab lishment of a European counterfeiting and piracy 
observatory.    What are the status of and the timetable for establishing a European counterfeiting and piracy 
observatory? 
How/by what means will this observatory help prevent counterfeiting and piracy? 
 
Answer
 
The European Counterfeiting and Piracy Observatory  was launched on 2 April 2009. The structure of 
the Observatory will be light and flexible. Each Member State of the EU will have a delegate 
alongside key private sector representatives. The day -to-day operation of the Observatory will be run 
by the Commission services.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 274  
 
 The overall goal of the Observatory is to produce continuous, objective as sessments and up-to-date 
research that lead to exchange of best practice and knowledge gathering  among policymakers, 
industry experts and enforcement bodies.  The Observatory will boost the fight against counterfeiting and piracy by: 
- Obtaining better information includin g figures about the size of the problem 
- Enhancing cooperation between enforcement authorities - Exploring and spreading successful private sector strategies - Raising public awareness 
 
WT/TPR/S/214:  Report by the Secretariat II. TRADE AND INVESTMENT REGIMES  (5) TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS  (i) Overview  
Question 8 
 Page 20, paragraph 26:  
According to the Secretariat, the EU's preferential trade agreements "have so far resulted in free trade 
in non-agricultural goods, and limited liberalizati on of trade in agricultural goods."  Since trade 
liberalization in agricultural goods is limited, pl ease explain how the tariff elimination commitments 
in these agreements satisfy the "substantially all trade" provision contained in GATT Article XXIV. 
 
Answer
 
The EC welcomes the US's interest in further clarify ing this issue. The EC would like to seize this 
opportunity to express its disagreement with the WTO Secretariat's remark regarding the 
liberalization commitments under its FTAs. As the US may have realised, this  comment by the WTO 
Secretariat has not been backed by supporting evi dence, and therefore, th e reference to "limited 
liberalization of trade in agricultural goods" is uns ubstantiated. Furthermore, it remains unclear to 
which RTAs the WTO Secretariat refers to.  RTAs negotiated and concluded since the last EC TPR in 2007, i.e. the period of reference and focus 
for this TPR, fully comply with all requirements set out by GATT Article XXIV- not only with the 
"substantially all trade" provision, but also with other requirements such as "no exclusion of major 
sector".  
 III. TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE (2) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
(i) Customs procedures 
 Question 9 
Pages 36-37, paragraphs 11-12 : 
While we appreciate that the EC is taking steps to ensure the uniform implementation of common 
customs procedures within the EU, we continue to have concerns.  Much of the information provided 
in paragraphs 11 and 12 focuses on improvements in  the area of classification.  What specific 
measures has the Commission outlined to improve the BTI system in light of the improvements identified by the European Court of Auditors?  Wh at is the timeframe for implementation of those 
improvements?  Furthermore, the concerns that ha ve been raised about uniform implementation are 
much broader than classification alone. What steps is  the EC taking in other areas, such as valuation 
and appeal procedures, to improve uniformity across the EU? 
 
Answer
 
The Court of Auditors report did not identify any systematic failing in the BTI system.  Those 
recommendations that actually concern the system  have been noted by the Commission and steps have  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 275 
 
 
 been taken to address them.  Deta ils of those steps are set out in the Commission's replies to the 
Special Report (published in Official Journal C103  on 24 April 2008) and ou tline what has already 
been done and what is ongoing.  With regard to uniform applic ation of the system, the Court of  
Auditors did not find there was a lack of such application.    
With regard to those concerns said to be "much broader than classification" it is assumed that the US 
is referring to those recommendations concerni ng the internal organisation of the Commission and 
the Member States administrations.  Such ma tters are for the Commission services and national 
administrations concerned to address.    
As to valuation field, The EC ensures a very high l evel of uniformity in the implementation of its 
customs laws, including customs valuation, through a wide range of means.   With regards to appeal procedu res, The Modernised Customs Code  which was published and entered 
into force in June 2008 and will be fully applicab le by 2013, and its Impl ementing Provisions 
(currently under preparation) will improve th e regulatory and supervisory structure (e.g., 
Committees, audits and budgetary cont rols) of the application of Community customs legislation. 
Moreover, this new legal framew ork will be supplemented by vari ous operational tools and common 
procedures (e.g. explanatory notes and guidelines, monitoring, C 2013 programme) in order to 
enhance further the uniform application of customs le gislation in the 27 Member States. The issue of 
administrative appeals is already addressed in the Mo dernised Customs Code in accordance with the 
European Charter of Fundamental Rights and European Court of Justice case-law. 
Moreover there is a reporting mechanism put in place by the Commission in order to have a full 
picture of the way disputes in custom s matters are handled by Member States.  
This being said, as confirmed by both the Panel an d the Appellate Body in the DS 315 EC Selected 
customs matters, the EC is currently perfectly complying with WTO requirements concerning the 
administration of its customs law in gen eral and of appeals procedure in particular. 
 (vi) Import prohibitions, restrictions, and licensing  Question 10 Page 50 paragraph 45:  
Since its 2007 TPR, the EC has added its import su rveillance scheme for fruits and vegetables.  Why 
did the EC create this import surveillance scheme?  What does the EC hope to accomplish with its 
new scheme?  Is the scheme temporary?  Is this re gime administered with import licenses and, if so, 
have they been notified to the Committee on Impor t Licensing Procedures?  If not, how does the EC 
plan to carry out its "surveillance"?  Answer
 
The Surveillance System  has been applied to fresh fruit and vegetables for a long time. It existed 
already in 1994, at the time of the last GATT ne gotiations. The "standard" trade database, such as 
Comext, provides data with a lag of one month.  A Surveillance System is a reinforced import 
monitoring system aimed at having data "in-time". Surveillance data refer to daily imports by origin 
and Member States provide data to the Commission at least once every week. 
 The new system introduced in 2007 responds only to the need of improving the reliability and speed of 
data transmission through new proce dures, including new IT solutions. 
Surveillance data is public:  
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds/cgi bin/survquer?Lang=EN&Offset=1&ListSurvNumb=0 
(the database for surveillance on the EUROPA web-s ite displays the volumes of specific products 
imported into the EU customs territo ry in the present and in the past year). 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 276  
 
 This statistical collection of data is based  on article 308d of Commission Regulation No 2454/93 
(Customs Code's Impl ementing Provisions). 
 Import licences
 
Import licences also respond to information needs.  Through this tool, it is possible to have data on 
"expected imports". Licences are issued before the transaction is carried out (normally within an 
interval between two months and two weeks), so we have data on "intenti on of importing" and 
operators may adjust their purchasing strategies a ccordingly. Traders lose something in terms of 
administrative burdens, as import licences are issued s ubject to the provision of a security to ensure 
that the operations for which an import licence has  been applied for are actually performed. 
However, experience show that th ese costs are largely offset by gai ns in terms of more market 
transparency.   (vii) Contingency measures  
Question 11 
Page 52, paragraph 50: 
The EC’s green paper expressed concerns with the EC’s application of trade defense instruments 
especially with regard to transpar ency, accessibility, and effectiveness.  In light of this, please explain 
why further progress towards implementing some of the suggested reforms identified in the green 
paper has not yet been made.    Answer
 
In January 2008 the Trade Commissioner concluded that  more reflection time is needed to continue 
the Green Paper process. There is no specific tim eline for finishing these public consultations 
 
Question 12 Page 52, paragraph 51 and footnote 63:  
Did any interested party request that the Co mmission review anti-dumping, anti-subsidy, and 
safeguard measures in light of evidence suggesting that the measure(s) would have been significantly 
different if it were based on information that include d new members, i.e., Bulgaria and Romania?  If 
yes, what was the outcome?  Answer
 
No. 
 
Question 13 
Page 52, paragraph 52:  
According to the Secretariat, "[t]he number of c ontingency measures notified by the EC to the WTO 
has decreased since 2005."  However, the figures provi ded in Table III.6 also appear to show a 100% 
increase in antidumping initiations from 2007 to 2008.  Can the EC please confirm that our interpretation of the statistics is accurate? 
 
Answer
 
As stated by the Secretariat, the number of c ontingency measures notified by the EC decreased in 
2008 when compared to 2005.  The US is correct in noting an increase in contingency measures 
between 2007 and 2008 - however it should be noted that, in the reference period, the number of 
measures notified for 2007 was particularly low.  
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 277 
 
 
 (a) Anti-dumping (AD) measures 
 
Question 14 
Pages 52-53, paragraph 53 and footnote 69 : 
Please explain how abstentions by Member State representatives on the Advisory Committee affect 
the Commission’s evaluation of public interest  when determining whether or not to impose 
antidumping measures.  Also, please confirm the specific  sections of EC law that provide for a public 
interest test.  What specific criteria does the EC examine when determining whether the imposition of 
an antidumping measure is in the public interest?  Answer
 
So far the issue of abstentions by Member States has not cropped up in investigations in the manner 
referred to. If it would do so we would evaluate the effect, if any. The criteria to be examined in the Community interest test are spelled out in Ar ticle 21 Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 
December 1995. 
 
Question 15 Page 53, paragraph 54  
The Secretariat states, "[d]efinitive AD duties are im posed by the Council and expire five years after 
their imposition or five years after the conclusion of a review of the measure."   Please clarify whether the reference to "review" is limited to an expiry re view, or does it include another type of review, such 
as a review to modify the amount of the antidumping measure? 
 
Answer
 
This reference is limited to expiry reviews and to full interim reviews which cover both dumping and 
injury. 
 
Question 16 
Page 53, paragraph 54  also states that "[w]here a temporar y change in market conditions makes the 
continued imposition of such measures temporarily inappropriate, AD measures may be suspended for 
a maximum of one year and reinstated if necessary."  How often has this situation occurred?  Please 
provide an example of circumstances that would justify such a practice.   Answer
 
The European Commission may suspend anti-dumping me asures where it is clear that the injury to 
the Community has temporarily st opped. So far, a total number of 9 suspensions have taken place. 
 
For examples of circumstances the European Co mmission refers you to the cases OJ No L 81, 
19.3.2004, p. 89 (recitals 9 and 10) - coke from China; OJ No L 149, 17.6.2003, p.30 (recitals 6 to 8) 
- certain malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings from Brazil; OJ No L 165, 15.7.95, p. 26 (recital 14) 
– EPROMs from Japan.; OJ No L 126, 9.6.95 , p. 58 (recital 14) – DRAMs from Japan. 
 
(viii) Technical regulations and other technical requirements 
(a) Technical Barriers to Trade   
Question 17 
The Cosmetics Directive establishes a prohibition on testing finished cosmetic  products and cosmetic 
ingredients on animals (testing ban) and a prohibi tion on marketing in the EC finished cosmetic 
products and ingredients included in  cosmetic products that were t ested on animals (marketing ban). 
The testing ban on finished cosmetic products a pplies since 11 September 2004, whereas the testing 
ban on ingredients or combination of ingredients will apply step by step as soon as alternative 
methods are validated and adopted, but with a maximu m cut-off date of 6 years after entry into force 
of the Directive, i.e., 11 March 2009, irrespective of the availability of altern ative non-animal tests.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 278  
 
 The marketing ban will apply step by step as soon as alternative methods are validated and adopted in 
EU legislation.  This marketing ban will be introduced at the latest 6 years after entry into force of the 
Directive, i.e., 11 March 2009, for all human heal th effects with the ex ception of repeated-dose 
toxicity, reproductive toxicity and toxicokinetics.  For these specific health effects, a deadline of 10 
years after entry into force of  the Directive is foreseen, i.e.
, 11 March 2013, irrespective of the 
availability of alternative non-animal tests.  
 Regarding the 2009 deadlines, of the seven end poi nts relevant for cosmetic products safety, 
alternative non-animal tests are not available for two of the end points (eye irritation and acute toxicity).  In light of the unavailability of th ese two alternative non-animal tests, how does the 
Commission intend to ensure that trade is not disrupted? 
 
Answer
 
The EC would like to underline that the ban concern s only tests performed after the deadline, i.e 
11 March 2009. Therefore, cosmetic products whose ingredients would have been tested on animals 
regarding these two health aspects (acute toxicity  and eye irritation) before this date can still be 
placed on the EC market.The EC anticipates that alternative methods to these two animal tests will be validated in 2009 or in 2010. In between, the EC  recognises that cosmetic products containing 
ingredients which would require these tests could not be placed on the EC market. However, the EC 
would like to stress that this rule does not create  discrimination as it applies notwithstanding the 
origin of the cosmetic product, European or not. 
 
Question 18  
Page 56, paragraph 64:  
Under the "new approach," are non-EU standardiz ing bodies permitted to develop standards based on 
"essential requirements" set by the Commission?  If so , will products meeting a standard developed by 
a non-EU standardizing body be permitted to be placed on the EU market under the same conditions 
that a product meeting a standard develope d by an EU standardizing body will? 
 
Answer
 
Non-EU standardising bodies may develop their wo rk programme in an independent way, and may 
decide to develop standards according to their own procedures and priorities. 
 
Products falling under the scope of New Approach legislation are presumed to comply with the legal 
essential requirements if they are in conformity w ith a Harmonised European Standard developed by 
one of the European Standards Organisations CEN, CENELEC and ETSI, under a request from the 
European Commission, and after publication of thei r references in the Of ficial Journal of the 
European Union. Standards or other documents deve loped by other organisations may be used as a 
basis by the European Standards Organisations. They may be used in the context of presumption of 
conformity as long as they have been endorsed by  CEN, CENELEC and ETSI and incorporated into a 
Harmonised European Standard. 
 
Question 19 
Page 56, paragraph 64:  
What is the process for allowing interested partie s to provide comments and to ensure that such 
comments will be taken into account in the form ulation and adoption of technical regulations? 
 
Answer  
Any EC legislative proposal is preceded by an exten sive stakeholder consultation, which is open to 
third countries' stakeholders and governments  (all c onsultations are published on the Europa webite 
at the Your Voice in Europe page: http://ec.eur opa.eu/yourvoice/index_en.htm) and is also based on 
an extensive impact assessment evaluating the econom ic, environmental and social consequences of 
the available policy options, including their compatib ility with the international trade obligations of  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 279 
 
 
 the EC.  Stakeholders often have further opportunities to make contributions in the context of the 
impact assessment phase. In addition, substant ive amendments to the original European 
Commission's legislative proposal introduced by the EU  Council or the European Parliament are also 
subject to an impact assessment.  For additional de tails, please refer to the Better Regulation pages 
on the Europa website: http://ec.europa.eu /governance/better_regulation/index_en.htm. 
 
As soon as a legislative proposal is finalised, it is  notified to the other WTO Members pursuant to the 
TBT Agreement procedures, thereby allowing a further possibility for comments. The EC has always 
been open to consider other WTO Members' comme nts, provided both written and oral responses to 
all these comments and took them into account when  finally adopting the measures in question, in the 
cases where this would not risk the non-fulfilm ent of the legitimate objectives pursued.  
 Please also see the answer given to question 29. 
 
Question 20 
Page 57, paragraph 67:  
The Secretariat states, "At the Community level,  standards (voluntary) can be mandated by the 
Commission.  The EC standardization bodies (CEN, CENELEC, and ETSI) have the option to accept or reject the mandate."  If the Commission has ma ndated a standard, i.e., requested the relevant 
standards body prepare a standard, on what basi s would a standards body reject the request? 
 Answer
 
European Standards Organisations are independent organisations. They establish their work 
programme following a consensual process, in which the European Commission is one of the 
stakeholders. Standards are documents establishe d by consensus and approved by a recognized body 
that provide, for common and repeated use, rules, gu idelines or characteristic s for activities or their 
results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum degree of order in a given context. Should the 
European Standards Organisations co nsider that the request addressed to  them does not comply with 
their definition of standards, they may wish to disregard it. European Stand ards Organisations may 
conduct feasibility studies based on requests addressed  to them by one or several of their 
stakeholders. Should the studies conclude on a non- feasibility (for example, because no consensus 
will be able to be reached), they may decide not to launch the requested standardisation work. 
 
QUESTION 21 
Page 57, paragraph 67 : 
How do the European standard-setting bodies take into  account the views of non-EU stakeholders in 
the standards those bodies develop?   Answer
 
Any stakeholder established in one of the EU and EFTA Member States can participate in European 
standardisation technical committees. In additio n, the European Standards Organisations have 
signed cooperation agreements with their inter national counterparts ("Vienna Agreement" and 
"Dresden Agreement"). ISO and IEC may send observ ers to any European technical committee of 
CEN and CENELEC and may comment on draft Europe an standards. ETSI’s procedures provide for 
direct participation of stakeholders, including foreign stakeholders.  The Vienna and Dresden Agreements provide for pr ocedures of cooperation and transfer of work 
from the European Standards Organisations to the in ternational level. 40 to 65 percent of European 
Standards are developed in cooperation with the in ternational standards organisations, leading to 
identical standards. 
 The European Commission has repea tedly expressed its support to international standardisation as a 
basis, where appropriate, fo r European Standards. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 280  
 
 Question 22  
Page 57, paragraph 68:  
The Secretariat states, "Accreditation of confor mity assessment bodies is carried out by Member 
States and is not regulated at Community level…"  Furthermore, each Member State is to appoint a single national accreditation body.  Are accredita tion bodies other than Member States' national 
accreditation bodies, including accreditation bodies located outside the EU, permitted to accredit 
testing and certification bodies in the EU?  If so , are the testing and certification bodies that an 
accreditation body other than a Member State’s nati onal body (including those located outside the 
EU) accredits permitted to test and certify pro ducts for conformity with EU/Member State 
requirements?  Do Member States impose any condi tions or limitations on the ability of accreditation 
bodies located outside the EU to provide accreditati ons, or on the acceptance by EU regulators of 
accreditations such bodies have issued?  If so, wh at are those limitations or conditions?  
 
Answer
 
Pursuant to Regulation (EC) 765/2008 of the Euro pean Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 
setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of 
products62, where EC product legislation requires third-par ty conformity assessment, accreditation is 
the preferred method of determining that a confor mity assessment body (CAB) meets the applicable 
requirements to carry out a specific c onformity assessment activity.   
 Only CABs established under the national law of an EU Member State are eligible for becoming 
"notified bodies" for the purposes of the relevant  EC "New Approach" pr oduct legislation.  
 Under Regulation 765/2008, each Member State must appoint a single national accreditation body, unless it considers that it is not economically meani ngful or sustainable, in which case it may have 
recourse to the national accreditation body of an other Member State. National accreditation bodies 
of the EU Member States should be members  of the European Co-operation for Accreditation (EA), 
which is the body recognised as providing the sup port infrastructure to the new EC accreditation 
framework.   Where a CAB requests accreditation, as a general ru le it should do so with the national accreditation 
body of the Member State in which it is establis hed. Article 7 of Regulation 765/2008 defines a 
number of exceptions to this principle where accred itation may be requested to an accreditation body 
of a Member State other than the Member State in which the CAB is established.  Accreditation by an accreditation body outside the European Economic Area (EEA) does not confer 
any specific additional rights per se regarding the acceptance of a CAB as a notified body under EC 
product legislation.  
Question 23  
Page 57, paragraph 69:  
In addition to the mutual recognition agreements, what other options has the EC considered as a 
means to recognize the results of conformity assessment in non-EU countries?  Answer
 
In addition to the possibilities offered by the MRAs  which the EC has concluded with a number of 
countries, there are several possib ilities for third-country CABs to participate in the conformity 
assessment activities under applicable EC product legislation.  
 
First , third-country CAB's subsidiaries established in an EU Member State are eligible for 
designation as a Notified Body for the purposes of th e EC "New Approach" product legislation. In 
                                                      
62 OJEU L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 281 
 
 
 this case if accreditation is used by the notifying aut hority of the Member State in which the CAB in 
question is established to back up the designation d ecision, accreditation should be requested with the 
national accreditation body of that Member State. Only in certain cases provided for in Article 7 of 
Regulation 765/2008, accreditation may be requested with a national accreditation body of a Member 
State other than the Member State in which the CAB is established. 
 
Second , designated Notified Bodies can subcontract specific tasks connected with conformity 
assessment under private contractual  agreements. This includes the po ssibility of subcontracting to 
third-country CABs and testing labor atories. Under these arrangements,  Notified Bodies must ensure 
that the subcontractor or subsidiary meets the t echnical competence requirem ents relating to Notified 
Bodies and retain full responsibility for the tasks perfor med by subcontractors or subsidiaries. Third-
country CABs and testing laboratories holding accreditation certificates under IAF or ILAC will generally be presumed to fulfil those technical competence requirements and therefore be able to 
enter into subcontracting arrangements with EC Notified Bodies.    
Third
, where international private sect oral voluntary arrangements for the recognition of test results 
supported by ILAC/IAF accreditation are in place, su ch as the IECEE CB scheme on the safety of 
electrical equipment or the IECEx scheme on the safety  of equipment used in explosive atmospheres, 
such arrangements are widely used by Europe an CABs, in relation to both the voluntary or 
mandatory third-party certification, and thus pr ovide a great potential for trade facilitation. 
 
Question 24 Page 57, paragraphs 70 and 71:  
The Report states that goods lawfully marketed in one Member State should be allowed to be 
marketed in any other Member state.  We understand,  however, that application of the principle is 
often inconsistent.  What plans does the EU have , or what procedures are in place, to address 
situations where a Member State is not allowing goods  lawfully marketed in another Member State to 
be sold in its market?  What recour se is or will be available to countr ies (or their industries) other than 
EU Member States if that country (or its industr y) believes that a product has not received equal 
treatment across Member States?   
Answer
 
First of all it should be clarified that from 13 Ma y 2009 any Member State which intends to deny the 
access to its market to a non-harmonised product lawf ully marketed in another Member State will 
have to follow the procedural requirement establishe d in Articles 4 to 6 of Regulation No. 764/200863 
(hereinafter: the "Mutual Recognition Regulation"). This means that the Member State has to notify 
its intention to the economic opera tor concerned, specifying the techni cal rule on which the decision 
is based and providing technical or scientific eviden ce that such decision is appropriate and justified 
on the public interest grounds set out in Article 30 of the EC Treaty. The economic operator will then 
have at least 20 working days after the receipt of such notice to submit comments. If the Member 
State, after the receipt of the economic operator’s comments, decides to ban th e access, this decision 
has to be notified to the economic operator and to the Commission.  
In any case, such decision can be challenged before national courts or tribunals or other instances of 
appeals.  On a yearly basis each Member State will send to the European Commission a report on the application of the Regulation which will include the number of written notices sent to economic 
operators when it was initially fo reseen to deny the access to the market and the type of products 
                                                     
 
  63 Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 laying 
down procedures relating to the application of certain na tional technical rules to products lawfully marketed in  
another Member State and repealing Decision No 3052/95/EC, JO L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 21. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 282  
 
 concerned, information concerning any decision taken which finally denied the access to its market, 
the grounds on which those decisions were based and the type of products concerned. 
 The same measures of redress a re available to the economic op erators concerned, regardless of 
whether they are established in the EU or not. Hence, when an industry from a non-EU country 
considers that its products have not received equal treatment across Member States, it is entitled to 
present a complaint before the competent national c ourts of the Member State in which its product is 
not treated equally. Furthermore, the non-EU indu stry may lodge a complaint with the Commission 
against a Member State for any measure or practice attributable to that Member State which it considers incompatible with a provision or a principle of Community law. If the Commission 
considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation under the EC Treaty, it will start an 
infringement procedure, in accor dance with Article 226 of the Treaty. 
 
Question 25  
Page 58, paragraph 71 : 
The Secretariat advises that an enhanced framework  for mutual recognition (EC Regulation 764/2008) 
will enter into force on 13 May 2009.  Has it been notified to the WTO?  
 
Answer
 
Regulation No 764/2008 does not lay down any tech nical regulation or any conformity assessment 
procedure in the sense of the TBT Agreement.  This new regulation only establishes the procedural 
requirements to correctly apply th e principle of mutual recognition which derives from the case-law 
of the Court of Justice of the European Communities and is one of the means of ensuring the free movement of goods within the internal market . Therefore the Regulation has not been notified to 
the WTO. 
 
Question 26  
Page 58, paragraph 72:  
The Report states that several WTO Members have raised concerns in the TBT Committee regarding 
technical regulations maintained or proposed by the EC that could act as unnecessary barriers to trade 
in a variety of products.  What steps has the EC taken to ensure that the concerns of its trading 
partners have been taken into consideration particularly when adopting new or amending existing 
regulations?  Similarly, what steps has the EC taken to provide early notice to its trading partners to 
allow them to participate in a meaningful way in  the preparation, adoption, and application of 
technical regulations?   
Answer
 
With respect to the concerns rai sed by other WTO Members in the TBT Committee with regard to EC 
draft measures, the EC is committed to respecti ng its obligations under the TBT Agreement. These 
include, for example, transparency obligations (e.g. publishing a notice at an early appropriate stage, 
notifying the draft measures to the WTO, providin g the WTO Secretariat with copies of these draft 
measures, and allowing reasonable time for comment s). Furthermore, the EC  has always been open 
to consider other WTO Members' comments, pr ovided both written and oral responses to these 
comments and took them into account when finally  adopting the measures in question, in the cases 
where this would not risk the non-fulfilment of the legitimate objectives pursued.   It is also worth noting that the legislative proc ess in the EC is among the most transparent among 
WTO Members: any legislative proposal is preceded by an extensive stakeholder consultation, which 
is open to third countries' stakeholders and governments   (all consultations are published on the 
Europa webite at the Your Voice in Europe page: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/index_en.htm
) and is 
also based on an extensive im pact assessment evaluating the econom ic, environmental and social 
consequences of the available policy options, in cluding their compatibility with the international 
trade obligations of the EC. In addition, subst antive amendments to the original European  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 283 
 
 
 Commission's legislative proposal introduced by the EU  Council or the European Parliament are also 
subject to an impact assessment. The outcome, in the EC 's view, is that the finally adopted text is not 
more trade restrictive than necessary to fulfil the legitimate objectives being pursued, and therefore 
does not create unnecessary obstacles to trade.  
 
QUESTION 27 page 58, paragraph 73:  
The Report claims that REACH "considerably streamlines previous EC legislation on chemicals"; 
however, can the EC detail how REACH fits together with other chemicals legislation such as RoHS, the pesticides/biocides directive and the DSD/ CLP?  
 
Answer
 
REACH streamlines about 40 individual pieces of previous  legislation, merging them into a single 
legislative instrument, thereby making it easier fo r companies to identify and comply with their 
obligations. It has a general scope that appli es without prejudice to Community workplace and 
environmental legislation (including RoHS).  It  is noted that exemptions have been foreseen in 
REACH for aspects that are sufficiently dealt with in  other regimes, such as the pesticides/biocides 
rules.  The Dangerous Substance Directive (67/ 548/EEC) has been repealed to a large extent by 
REACH. Regarding Classification and Labelling, it is noted that the new Regulation 1272/2008 on 
classification, labelling and packaging of substan ces and mixtures has been drafted after the adoption 
of REACH and that both Regulations a re consistent with each other. 
 
Question 28  
Page 59, paragraph 74:  
The United States’ specific trade concerns with RE ACH include, but are not limited to: (1) likelihood 
for differential enforcement of REACH across th e Member States; (2) continued uncertainty 
regarding the scope and applicability of the provisio ns relating to articles; (3) differential treatment 
with respect to "phase-in substances," particularly  the substances contained in imported cosmetic 
products; (4) requiring registration of reacted monome rs in polymers; (5) potential chilling effect on 
commerce of having a substance placed on the ca ndidate list; (6) transparency issues in the 
development of the REACH Implementation Proj ects; (7) protection of business proprietary 
information in the supply chain and the Substance Information Exchange Fora  (SIEFs); (8) operation 
of, and potential trade ramifications caused by, the Only Representative provision; and (9) high costs 
and burdens imposed by the regulation, particular ly for SMEs.  Please clarify how the EC plans to 
address these concerns and ensure that REACH will be implemented in a manner that is transparent 
and does not disrupt trade.  Answer
 
It is noted that the majority of these concern s have already been raised and addressed at several 
meetings of the TBT Committee.  Specifically, we would reiterate that:  (1) REACH is a Regulation and c onsequently it applies directly throughout the EU, without the 
need for its transposition into national measures.  The enforcement of REACH falls indeed under the 
responsibility of the EU Member States, but mec hanisms to ensure uniform interpretation and 
application of Community legislation are foreseen  under Community law.  The fact that different 
enforcement procedures and different penalties may exist in the different Member States does not 
affect the principle of uniform application, nor do es it lead to restrictions of trade, as Member States 
are required to ensure that such penaltie s and enforcement methods are effective; 
 
(2) The scope and obligations regarding substan ces in articles are laid down in the REACH 
Regulation.  It is noted that there has not b een any amendment thereto since the adoption of REACH 
in December 2006;  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 284  
 
 (3) The definition of phase-in substances applies regardless of the origin of the substances; 
 (4) The provisions governing the registra tion of monomers in polymers are currently under 
examination by the European Court of Justice;  
(5) Substances in the candidate list are not proh ibited or restricted, nor are they subject to 
authorisation.   In addition, it is noted that the process of elaboration of the candidate list is open, 
transparent, science-based and it specifically allows  for comments of any interested third party, 
including third country stakeholders;  
(6) The REACH Implementation Projects were d eveloped with a broad participation from 
stakeholders, including those from third countries;  (7) Confidential information, including for in stance specific volumes, suppliers, formulas, 
manufacturing processes, or uses are not required to be exchanged within the SIEF.  While the 
preparation of a chemical safety report may require the exchange of information on uses or 
processes, it is stressed that it is not mandatory
 for registrants to prepare the chemical safety report 
jointly.  Likewise, REACH does not require the disclos ure of confidential information down the supply 
chain.  In particular, it is noted that downstream us ers may decide not to discl ose their uses to their 
suppliers and to do their own chemical safety report;  
(8) The appointment of an only representative is an option available on a voluntary
 basis to non-
EU manufacturers.  It is stressed that REACH do es not impose obligations on manufacturers that are 
established outside the EU and that the appointment of an only representative is not mandatory;  (9) The need to ensure that the obligations contained in the Regulation should not be more trade-
restrictive than necessary to achieve the goals intended by the Regulation, notably the protection of 
human health and the environment, was a main con cern during the legislative process leading to the 
adoption of REACH.  Many features of the Regulation were specifically designed to address this concern.  Among others, we would note that the reg istration requirements depend on volume in which 
a particular substance is produced  or imported by an EU-based legal entity, that substances 
sufficiently regulated under other sectoral legislati on have been exempted, that  the entry into force of 
the obligations in REACH has been done progressi vely, and that reductions up to 90% of the 
registration fees apply to SMEs.  Finally, it should be noted that the European Co mmission and ECHA have made strenuous efforts to 
ensure transparency at all stages in the implem entation of REACH. Third countries have been 
extensively consulted.  The US in particular par ticipated not only in several expert groups developing 
guidance, but also attends the REACH Competent Aut horities meetings in which issues pertaining to 
REACH implementation and interpretation are discussed.  
 
Question 29  
Page 60, paragraph 76:  
According to the Secretariat, the EC is negotiating or preparing to negotiate a number of agreements 
on conformity assessment and acceptance of industrial materials (ACAA) with certain countries in the European neighborhood.  Please specify which countri es and sectors are or will be included in these 
agreements. 
 
Answer
 
Countries and sectors are as follows: 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 285 
 
 
 Mediterranean neighbouring countries: 
- Algeria : construction products, electrical pr oducts, pressure equipment, energy 
 efficiency requirements for household electric refrigerators, toys ;  
- Egypt : construction products, electrical products, pressure equipment, gas 
appliances, medical devices, machinery;  
- Israel : good manufacturing practices for medici nal products, medical devices, 
pressure equipment, machinery;  
- Jordan : electrical products, pressure equipment, toys, measuring instruments, 
construction products, gas appliances;  
-  Lebanon : electrical products, pressure e quipment, construction products;  
- Morocco : electrical products, machinery, construction products, gas appliances, 
toys;  
- Palestinian authority: construction products, pharmaceuticals;  
-  Syria : electrical products;  
- Tunisia : electrical products, machinery, cons truction products, pressure equipment, 
measuring instruments; 
 
Eastern neighbouring countries:  
- Ukraine : electrical products, machin ery, simple pressure vessels.  
 
(b) Sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) 
 
Question 30 
Page 60, paragraph 78:  
Please enumerate what special powers are given to the Commission to implement emergency measures in light of the WTO SPS Agreement, including transparency.  
 
Answer
 
The EC can temporary take emergency measur es by Comitology procedure through Commission 
Decisions published in the Official Journal of the EU. Periodic reviews must take place in order to 
assess whether the measures should be  maintained, improved or dele ted, based on the results from 
checks carried out on the products lis ted in the  Decision. The Article  53 of the Reg. 178/2008, laids 
down that , "As soon as possible, and at most with in 10 working days, the measures taken shall be 
confirmed, amended, revoked or extended ..., and th e reasons for the Commission's decision shall be 
made public without delay".  
Question 31 
Page 60, paragraph 78:  
The Report states that labeling of food products and animal welfare falls within the purview of the 
SPS Agreement.  What is the basis for the EC’s de termination that labeling of food products for 
purposes other than public health and animal welfar e should be addressed under the SPS agreement?     
 Answer
 
The mentioned paragraph is explaining the scope of  the Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002, not the scope 
of SPS Agreement. There is not any statement mentioning animal welfare as falling under the scope of the SPS Agreement.  
 
Question 32 
Page 61, paragraph 80:  
How does the EC plan to modern ize its traceability system for live animals?  Will these measures be 
notified to the WTO and will sufficient time be pr ovided for comment, adoption, and application to 
address potential trade concerns? WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 286  
 
 Answer
 
The modernization of the traceability system for liv e animals will consist in an interconnection of the 
27 databases of the Member States, plus Switzerl and and Norway, through TRACES to avoid any 
double keying when live animals are traded between EU  Member States. This concern only the EU 
single market and will not have any impact on third countries and will not be communicated to SPS. 
 
Regarding the border controls statistical tool based on data mining to assess the risk and to 
determine the consignment to be controlled will be  implemented. This will not be notified neither.   
 Question 33 
Page 61, paragraph 81: The Report states that processed foodstuffs that are not of animal origin "can generally be imported 
without a sanitary certificate."  What is meant by "generally"?  What items would not require a certificate?  How, and on what basis, does the EC make its determination?  Answer
 
EU legislation on processed foodstuffs of non anima l origin is currently not fully harmonised. EC 
Member States may therefore have some different approaches in im port controls and inspection, 
hence the term "generally". Wh en a processed foodstuff does not contain any product of animal 
origin, there is currently no need fo r a sanitary health certificate.  
The Commission is working towards the harmoni sation of the legislation for these products.  
 
QUESTION 34 Page 62, Paragraph 84:  
Please explain the factors considered by EFSA in  its risk assessments to determine pesticide 
maximum residue levels.  Will exposure data be c onsidered?  How will the EC work with other 
trading partners to enhan ce the goal of harmonization? 
 
Answer
 
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is a se parate legal entity, independent from the other 
EU institution which provides the European Commi ssion with independent scientific advice on all 
matters with a direct or indirect impact on food safety. EFSA has developed a comprehensive body 
("Good Risk Assessment Practice") of good risk asse ssment practices to guide its Scientific Panel and 
Committee experts to help ensure EFSA opinions resp ect the highest scientific standards. The EC is 
an active partner in the international standard-setting bodies and fully collaborate with the rest of its 
trading partners. Within the SPS Agreement framew ork, the EC work through the SPS notification 
procedure, and also in bilateral contacts when need  them, as it has been the case in multiple occasion 
with the USA administratio n and industry representatives 
 Question 35 Page 64, paragraph 89:  
The Secretariat report states that, "On the basis of the EFSA's opinion and any other "legitimate 
factors," the Commission should submit a proposal granting or rejecting the authorization to the 
Standing Committee on Food Chain and Animal Health within three months."   Please specify what 
constitutes "legitimate factors" as indicated in this paragraph.  
Answer
 
Concerning the "other legitimate factors" to be taken  into account in risk management decisions, the 
EC follows the Codex Alimentarius Decision (2nd Statement of Principles concerning the Role of 
Science in decision making process and the extent to which other factors are taken into account): 
"When elaborating and deciding upon food standards Codex Alimentarius wi ll have regard, where 
appropriate, to other legitimate factors  relevant for the health protection of consumers and for the 
promotion of fair practices in food trade". The cr iteria for the consideration of the other legitimate  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 287 
 
 
 factors have been established by the C odex Alimentarius Commission during the 21st Session, in 1995 
(Procedural Manual, Seventeenth edition,  page 194 of the English version). 
 
http://www.codexalimentarius.n et/web/procedural_manual.jsp  
Other legitimate factors that should be taken into account include (but are not limited to) societal, 
economic, traditional, ethical and environmental facto rs and the feasibility of controls (see recital 19 
of Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002).  QUESTION 36 Page 64, paragraph 89:  
According to the Secretariat, there appear to be considerable delays in reaching final decisions on 
"GMO" approvals.  Also, according to the Secretariat,  the "[a]pproval of other GMOs and their use in 
food and feed is pending."  What are the cau ses for such delays and how is the Commission 
addressing them?   Answer
 
The timeline for the authorisation procedure of GM  food and feed is clearly defined by Regulation 
(EC) No. 1829/2003 which sets conditions by which dossiers submitted by the companies are assessed 
both in terms of the completeness of the informati on submitted, and with regard to the safety of the 
products. For most of the applica tions these conditions were not comple tely met and this situation has 
nearly always obliged EFSA to have a particularly long completeness check and/or to stop the clock 
for the six month evaluation period so as to re quest further information from the applicant to 
appropriately assess the product. In this respect app licants have not always been rapid in providing 
EFSA with the required information leading to fu rther delays. Contacts are on going between EFSA 
and applicants in order to improve the exchange of in formation and thus the time needed to obtain all 
the necessary information for EFSA to finalise its opinion. 
 
The Commission is committed to correctly applying the EU legislative framework in the respect of the 
timeline foreseen by the legislation. In particul ar, whenever possible the Commission has forwarded 
the proposal for a decision to the Standing Committ ee within the three-month period foreseen by the 
legislation. When this has not been the case it is  because of well justifiable reasons linked to the 
necessity to clarify specific aspects of the risk  assessment or the risk management and therefore 
requests to EFSA and/or applicants to provide additional information. 
 Question 37 Page 64, paragraph 90 
The Secretariat report outlines the EC’s traceab ility and labeling requirements for GMO food and 
feed.  In the Commission’s view, how have these traceability and labeling requirements impacted the 
market for foods that contain "GMO" ingredients?  Are food products containing "GMO" ingredients, 
and labeled as such, commercially available with in the EU?  If so, please provide examples.  
 
Answer
 
A very important part of the Regulation is devoted to the definition of labelli ng rules whose aim is 
exactly to inform consumers of the GM origin of the products, thus providi ng them with an effective 
right to choose between GM and non-GM products  The major factor on the market of GM food is the fr ee choice of European citizens to buy or not GM 
products. As a result of the strong and well-documented aversion of a majority of EU citizens towards 
GM food products, their presence on the market is much reduced (examples are certain brand of 
soybean oil, chocolate products and a maize beer).  The Commission would like to stress that it considers the right of consumers to choose has a fundamental part of its legislation to GMOs and more generally of its principles in food laws. This WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 288  
 
 view is shared by a vast majority of States around the world as proven by all of the recent discussions 
in the context of the Codex Alimentarius Commission on food labelling.  The European Community will strongly continue to support the adoption of  Codex recommendations 
on the labelling of GM foods as this guidance in par ticular would be extremely useful for meeting the 
strong demand in this respect of developing countries.  
 
(ix) Government procurement 
 Question 38 Page 65, paragraph 96 
Paragraph 96 indicates that "Public procurement in the EC continues to be regulated by: Directive 
2004/18/EC . . . and Directive 2004/17/EC".  Do we correctly understand that these Directives have 
replaced Directive 93/37, which defines coverage of  EC entities in its Annexes to Appendix I of the 
Government Procurement Agreement (GPA)?  If our understanding is correct, when will the EC fulfill 
its GPA obligation to notify the Committee on Govern ment Procurement of the changes in relevant 
directives, as required by Article XXIV:6 of the GPA?  
 
Answer
 
As explained in the Secretariat' s report, Directive 2004/18/EC governs the rules to be applied for the 
award of public work contracts, public supply c ontracts, and public services contracts. This directive 
consolidated the previous Directives 93/36/EC, 93/37/EC and 92/50/EC. Its scope remains 
unchanged. Therefore, the EC's commitments under the GPA are the same. Directive 2004/17/EC has 
no relation to Directive 93/37/EC as it con cerns the domain of utilities procurement. 
 QUESTION 39 Pages 65-66, paragraphs 95 and 96  
When does the EC intend to notify the Committee on Government Procurement of the changes in its 
national legislation, as described in paragraphs 95 and 96, and as required by GPA Article XXIV:5(b)? 
 
Answer
 
As mentioned in the Secretariat's report, th e European Commission referred in March 2007 seven 
Member States to the European Court of Justice ov er their continued non-communication of national 
measures implementing Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/ 18/EC. Following the referral to the Court 
of Justice, six Member States have communicate d the transposition measures which are now part of 
the national legal order and published in their nat ional gazette. The quality and correctness of the 
measures and their correct implementation is now being reviewed by the European Commission. One 
Member State has not yet transposed the EU procurement directives. 
 QUESTION 40 
Page 67, paragraph 101 : 
Paragraph 101 provides estimates of EC procuremen t for 2006.  However, the EC has never submitted 
to the Committee on Government Procurement an y of the annual reports of statistics on its 
procurements covered by the GPA, as required by GPA Article XIX:5.  When will the EC fulfill its 
obligation to submit statistics for 1996 through 2007?    
Answer
 
The EC is preparing the statistical reports as required by article XIX.5 of the GPA. The reports will 
soon be circulated to the GPA Committee.  
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 289 
 
 
 Question 41 
Page 70, paragraph 107: 
Paragraph 107 notes that the EC has submitted only one notification to the Committee on Government 
Procurement during the period under review.  The EC has acknowledged in the Committee on 
Government Procurement that it has made more than 500 modifica tions to the entities covered in 
Annex 1 of Appendix I of the GPA since 1996, and th at such modifications ha ve included removal of 
entities and other changes.  However, the EC has ne ver notified the Committee of such modifications.  
When will the EC fulfill its obligation under Ar ticle XXIV:6 to notify the Committee of the 
modifications in its entities lists?  Answer
 
The United States is confusing two different elements. One issue is that any modification of a Party's 
schedule of entities shall be notified to the GPA Co mmittee in accordance with the procedure foreseen 
under article XIX.6. Another issue to which the US is referring are the proposed lists of entities 
included in the EC's revised offer and currently s ubject to market access negotiations. Therefore, the 
reference made in the question posed by the US to a statement allegedly made by the EC in the GPA 
Committee is a misunderstanding (Please refer to th e minutes of the plurilateral sessions of the GPA 
Committee on coverage issues).  (3) Measures Directly Affecting Exports (iv) Export subsidies 
 
Question 42 
Page 72, paragraph 116 : 
Are there more recent developments than those contained in paragraph 116 regarding the use of 
export subsidies?  What are these developments ?  Please explain the mechanism the EC uses to 
determine the export refund amounts for dairy. 
 
Answer
 
Recent detailed information regarding the use of expor t subsidies will be made available in the Export 
Subsidies notification 2007/2008 to the Committee on Agriculture which is currently being prepared. 
 
The recent development is that th e EC introduced export subsidies for certain dairy products in the 
beginning of 2009 as a temporary measure in an ex tremely difficult situation. The products eligible 
for subsidies are condensed milk and cream, bu tter and buttermilk and cheese. A complete list of 
eligible products can be f ound in the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 57/2009. There is no 
predetermined duration for the application of these expor t subsidies. It is to be noted that in using 
export subsidies the EC respects its scheduled  commitments under the WTO and therefore, these 
measures are not WTO inconsistent measures. Th e EC has always and will continue to respect its 
international obligations. In addition, the EC stands by its commitments to phase-out export subsidies by 2013 on condition of a 
successful completion of the DDA in which our tr ading partners will also discipline their export 
support programmes. 
 
(4) Measures Affecting Production and Trade (i) Assistance and other incentives 
 
Question 43 
Page 73, paragraph 120: The report states that the Cohesion Fund "contributes to projects in the fields of environment and 
transport infrastructure." What type of funding does the Cohesion Fund provide?  Which industries in the fields of environment and transport infrast ructure have received funding under this program? 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 290  
 
 Answer
 
As regards funding provided by Cohesion Policy (t he European Regional Development Fund as well 
as the Cohesion Fund) to projects in the field of environment and transport in frastructure, it mainly 
concerns grants to public bodies (national, regio nal, local or any public authority) who have 
designated responsibilities to provide such infrastruc tures. In some cases su ch projects are developed 
through public private partnerships – for instance concessions linked to tolled roads. 
 There is therefore no direct
 funding to industries in the field of environment and transport 
infrastructure. Funding is granted  to public authorities who use public procurement procedures to 
contract project execution with the relevant enterp rises and industries. In this respect, the types of 
industries benefitting from Cohesion Fund projects in  the field of environment and transport are both 
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) a nd large companies working in the fields of 
construction of waste water treatment plants, ren ewable energy infrastructure, railway lines, roads 
and motorways, ports, airports, urban transport, intelligent transport systems. In the field of transport 
and as mentioned in the Cohesion Fund regulation, the priority for funding is given to projects related 
to the Trans-European Transport Networks (TEN-T).  
Question 44 
Page 75, paragraph 132:  
The report states that the Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) provides "grants for research and 
technologic development."  Do the FP7 programs pr ovide grants at all stages of research and 
development?  Do environmental projects such as alternative energy projects qualify for funding 
under this program?  
Answer
 
FP7 covers most thematic areas of research (including environm ental research) and funds all stages 
of research (technological development and demonstra tion) from basic research over industrial 
research up to precompetitive developm ent. The broad objectives of FP7 have been grouped into four 
categories: Cooperation, Ideas, People and Capacities.  For each type of objective, there is a specific 
programme corresponding to the main areas of EU research policy. All specific programmes 
contribute to promote the competitiveness of Eu ropean industry and support EC policies (as per the 
EC Treaty). Furthermore, the Framework Programme is open for participation and funding for legal 
entities from third countries. The selection of research projects is based on scientific excellence. 
Concerning the question on environmental projects,  FP7 do fund environmental projects (also on 
alternative energy) as long as they are resea rch projects and foreseen by the specific work 
programme.  
 
Question 45 
Page 83, paragraph 162, Table III.12:  
Please confirm whether 24% of the aid granted by Member States under State Aid programs that 
target agriculture and fisheries are monies that the EU includes in its domestic support notification to 
the WTO.  Answer National expenditure for agriculture, included in the Domestic Support notification of the EC, is 
collected from other sources than indicated in T able III.12, in the format required by document 
G/AG/2 (Notification requirements and formats). Th e absolute levels of support collected under the 
two sources correspond.  
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 291 
 
 
 (iv) Intellectual property rights (IPR) 
 
Question 46 
Page 85, paragraph 163: 
The Secretariat’s report states, "The EC has an ex tensive body of intellectual property legislation, 
which is often amended to harmonize protection in the Community to ensure a better functioning of 
the internal market."  Please describe the amendm ents to intellectual property laws designed "to 
harmonize protection in the Community to ensure a better functioning of the internal market" that 
have been adopted since the EC’s 2007 Trade Policy Review. 
 
Answer  
As far as the protection of IPR within the int ernal market is concerned no amendment to the EC 
legislation has been adopted.   (c) Geographical indications 
 
Question 47  
We understand that current and proposed regulati ons of so-called traditional expressions on wine 
labels can lead to the invalidati on of post 2002 registered or use-based  trademarks that contain any of 
the many traditional expressions.  Please explain how EC Regulation 753’s  provision on traditional 
expressions is consistent with the EC’s internati onal obligations to protect the rights of trademark 
owners, including under the Paris Convention a nd the TRIPS Agreement with regard to the 
invalidation of any registered or use-based tradem ark after 2002 (date of entry into force of 753) in 
the European market.  Since many of these trademarks  have been registered and used in EU Member 
state territories, as well as the entire EU market for th e last 7 years, and continue to be registered by 
national trademark offices as well as OHIM, the Unite d States would be interested to know how the 
invalidation of these trademarks could be justified on the basis of 753. 
 
Answer
 
Regulation No. 753/2003 contains pr ovisions regarding the protection of traditional terms. It notably 
provides that trademarks used to describe a wine on its labelling may not cont ain a traditional term 
unless the wine qualifies for such a term, with th e exception of trademarks existing before the entry 
into force of the said Regulation. The relevant pr ovision in Regulation No. 753/2003 refers to the use 
of a trademark, but neither to the registra tion nor the invalidation of a trademark.  
 Question 48 Page 92, paragraph 195: 
Please explain the European courts’ interpretation of  the EC’s "evocation standard" for infringement 
in the GI regulation 510/06 for agriculture products .  How does the EC justify the removal of generic 
terms from the public domain and their placement in the hands of particular EU Member state 
producer groups, to the detriment of other European and foreign traders?   
Answer
 
In the "Cambozola" case the European Court of  Justice had an opportunity to construe the 
meaning and scope of evocation. "T he concept of evocation covers a situation where the term used 
to designate a product incorporates part of a protected designation, so that when the consumer is confronted with the name of the product, the image  triggered in his mind is that of the product 
whose designation is protected. It is possible fo r a protected designation to be evoked where there 
is no likelihood of confusion between the products concerned and even where no Community 
protection extends to the parts of that designation which are echoed in the term or terms at issue".  
(Case C-87/97,  Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 4 March 1999. - Consorzio per la tutela 
del formaggio Gorgonzola v Käserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH & Co. KG and Eduard Bracharz GmbH. - European Cour t reports 1999 Page I-01301). WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 292  
 
 The EC does not "justify the removal of generic terms from the public domain and their placement 
in the hands…".  Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC)  No 510/2006 reads as follows: "Names that have 
become generic may not be registered". The same applies to names which have always been 
generic. It could be noticed that the prohibition of registration of names which are or have become 
generic, as provided for in Art. 3(1) , is general and subject to no reservation. 
 
Question 49 Page 92, paragraph 196 
Please explain how limiting GI applications under EC Regulation 510/06 (for agriculture products) to 
only those natural or legal persons that actually produce the goods identified in the specification – 
rather than also including a foreign certifica tion mark owner representing the interests of the 
producers -- is consistent with principles of national treatment?  
 
Answer
 
Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC)  No. 510/2006 states that only a group is entitled to apply for 
registration. For the purposes of this Regulation 'g roup' means any association, irrespective of its 
legal form or composition, of producers or processors working w ith the same agricultural product 
or foodstuff. Other interested parties may participat e in the group. A natural or legal person may 
be treated as group in accordance with the de tailed rules referred to in Article 16( c).  
The above provisions apply to EC producers and pro cessors as well as to third country producers 
and processors. They are identical in  the treatment that they accord to the nationals of other WTO 
Members and to the EC’ own nationals.  
 Question 50 Pages 92-93, paragraph 196:  
Does the Commission have any plans to provide for direct application and direct objections by third country applicants and interested parties for geographical indication protection under the wine 
regulation as well as the spirits regulation, or to eliminate the precondition for bilateral governmental 
negotiations and substantiation for GI protecti on in the EU market for third countries? 
 
Answer
 
Direct application for registration of designation of  origin or geographical indication by an applicant 
established in a third country is already foreseen in the wine legislation (Council Regulation (EC) 
No. 479/2008, Chapter IV), the spirits regulation (Regulation (EC) No. 110/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Chapter III) as well for agricultural products and foodstuffs (in 
Regulation (EC) No. 510/2006, under Article 5). In addition, the Regulations also provide for direct 
objection by the third country interested party agains t the registration of a designation of origin or 
geographical indication.  
(d) Enforcement 
 Question 51 Page 93, paragraph 198:  
The Secretariat’s report states that, with resp ect to IPR enforcement, "differences in the 
implementation of criminal procedures and penalties appear to create discrepancies in the level of protection available to right holders."  What actions  is the EC taking or considering to address these 
discrepancies?  Answer
 
In order to harmonise criminal measures aimed at ensuring the enforcement of IPR, the Commission 
adopted a proposal for a Directive in 2005. This proposal has been mod ified in 2006 following a 
decision of the European Court of Justice. This amended proposal was adopted with amendments by 
the European Parliament. It is now under discussion in the Council.     WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 293 
 
 
 IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR 
(1) INTRODUCTION  Question 52 Page 96, paragraph 4 
The Secretariat’s report notes, "The EC is implemen ting its action plan on energy efficiency so as to 
save 20% of its energy consumption by 2020 thro ugh changes in consumer behaviour and energy 
efficient technologies."  Does the EC action plan on  energy efficiency cover the 2005 directive on 
design requirements (life-cycle analysis) for energy efficient products? 
 
Answer
 
Yes, the abovementioned directive is covered by  the EC action plan on energy efficiency.  
Please consult the following lin k for further information: 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/ efficiency/index_en.htm 
 
(2) AGRICULTURE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES (ii) Common agricultural policy Dairy products  Question 53  
Page 109, paragraph 43 
This paragraph of the Secretariat’s Report seems to  be outdated.  Could th e EC provide an update 
with more recent devel opments regarding the use of export subsidies? 
 
Answer
 
See reply to question 42. 
 
Fruit and vegetables 
 
Question 54 
Page 110, paragraph 48:  
The Report indicates that additional financial support will be provided to producer organizations to 
strengthen the competitive position of producers in the market-place.  What types of activities will be 
funded by this support and how will the Commission monitor the use of these funds?  
Answer
 
Experience has shown that producer organisations (P O) are the proper tool for strengthening the 
position of producers in the market. The EU financial support under the Common Market 
Organisation (CMO) for fruit and vegetables is th erefore addressed to grouped producers and may be 
granted to producer organisations  implementing an operational progr amme (OP). Expenditure under 
the OP is for 50% (up to 60% under certain circu mstances) financed by the Community limited to 
4,1% (with possibility to increase to 4.6% if the excess is used for crisis prevention and management 
measures) of the value of the marketed production of each PO. 
Many different activities may be eligible for fi nancing under an operational programme as long as 
they fulfil the conditions set by the CMO and its obj ectives, including measures linked to the planning 
of production, improvement of product quality, boosti ng the commercial value of products, promotion 
of the products, environmental meas ures and crisis prevention and management.  
 
Question 55 
Page 111, paragraph 50: 
Why does this paragraph focus on the additional t esting the EC requires for imported almonds from 
the United States, when, at the same time, the EC requires additional aflatoxin testing of nuts it imports from several other countries (Commission Decision 2006/504/EC).  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 294  
 
 Answer
 
The EC wanted to show an example of the st rict SPS measures for fruit and vegetables. The 
Commission Decision 2007/563/EC was chosen as a good example and had no other meaning. 
 
Wine and alcohol 
 
Question 56 
Page 112, paragraph 56:  
Please explain how payments made to wine grower s for grubbing up vineyards or for converting 
vineyards from one grape variety to another are unr elated to production.  Further, the Commission 
notes that Member States are, perhaps increasingly, re sponsible for administering the direct payments.  
What controls are in place to ensure that these pa yments remain decoupled and not tied to production, 
and what has the Commission’s experience been in monitoring these payments?  
 
Answer  
Grubbing up schemes end production and when converting vineyards, farmers are not required to 
produce specific varieties, as long as their produc tion choices allow a structural transition towards 
varieties for which there are market opportunities. 
 
(iii) Fisheries 
 
Question 57 Page 114, paragraph 65: 
Concerning the EC’s new IUU fishing regulation ( due to enter into force in 2010), we would 
appreciate an explanation for why the EC believ es exporting Member governments will be able to 
certify the legality of fish products exported from their territory, particularly when, as in most 
instances, the government may well have no knowledge  of the circumstances surrounding the catch of 
the fish in question?  We also understand that th e EC will impose catch certification requirements for 
fish traded within the EC that will not be identi cal to those imposed on fish imported into the EC.  
How will the EC ensure that the catch certification requirements applicable to fish imported into the 
EC will be no more burdensome or restrictive than those applicable to fish  traded within the EC? 
 Answer
 
It is the primary responsibility of Flag Stat es to control compliance with conservation and 
management measures by their vessels. The EC is  expecting third countries to work within the 
administrative arrangements they have already in pl ace for verification and control in their capacity 
of Flag State. When validating a catch certificat e, Flag States exporting fishery products to the EC 
will have to confirm that their catches were done according to their own conservation and 
management rules when they have no conflicti ng information suggesting otherwise.  
 EC operators are subject to equivalent measures when exporting their products outside the EC: they 
will have to provide a catch certificate validated by  the competent Member State prior to exporting 
when the third country requests so. Furthermore, EC operato rs have also to comply with the EC rules 
on conservation and management of fish stocks, wh ich impose to them stricter requirements than 
those introduced by the IUU Regulation and the Commission proposed a Control Regulation in November 2008 that will reinforce the existing rules. The IUU Regulation is, therefore, non-
discriminatory vis-à-vis domestic products.   
Question 58 
Page 115, paragraph 69: 
Under its de minimis rule, the EC also allows Me mber States to give aid up to 30,000 Euros over a 
three-year period without restrictions as to use.  What was the total amount of aid given in 2007 and 
2008 under this policy?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 295 
 
 
 Answer  
Available figures concern total aid (outside EC F unds) granted by individual EC Member in 2007 
under a variety of schemes, thus including "de minimis" aid. They can be found in the document "Report from the Commission - State Aid Sco reboard - Autumn 2008 Update" COM/2008/0751 final 
of 17 November 2008. 
A copy of the aforementioned document can be found at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/competition/state_ai d/studies_reports/studies_reports.html 
For the year 2008 the figures will be published in a fu rther update of the State Aid Scoreboard in the 
course of 2009.  
Question 59 
Page 116 paragraph 71: 
Under the fisheries partnership agreements with de veloping countries in Africa and Pacific, the EC 
pays financial compensation to the countries for acc ess by Member State fishing fleets. For the EC’s 
top 5 developing country partners under these arrangements, please provide the amounts of access 
payments for 2007 and 2008 that were not reimbursed by the fleets. 
 
Answer
 
As mentioned by the US in its question, the EC  maintains Fisheries Partne rships Agreements which 
are genuine partnerships for the development of sustainable and responsible fisheries ("Fisheries 
Partnership Agreements - FPAs").  
In these Partnership Agreements an important portion of the financial contribu tion attached to the 
agreement is set aside to support the sectoral fisheri es policy in the beneficiary countries. This is done 
with a view to enable these countries to put in place their own fisheries policies so that they can meet their aim of economic development while protectin g fish resources. This means that the financial 
contribution paid by the EC to the third countries does not cover "access payments" only.  
Detailed information about the EC's bilateral Fish eries Partnerships Agreements  such as beneficiary 
countries, EC financial contributions, number of vessels involved, amounts paid by vessel owners 
(fees, licenses, etc), amounts earmarked for support  of sectoral fisheries policy, etc, is publicly 
available at the EC's Commission website (Directora te General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries) at 
the following page: http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/external _relations/bilateral_agreements_en.htm 
 
(5) SERVICES 
(i) Overview 
 
Question 60 
Page 134, Paragraph 113:  
The Secretariat’s report notes that, "Certification of the EC-25 schedule was completed in December 
2006, and the schedule will enter into force followi ng the completion of the internal decision-making 
procedure of the EC and its Member States, where applicable."   Why have the EC’s internal procedures not yet resulted in entry into force of the Consolidated 
Schedule?  
 
What steps is the EC taking to complete its intern al procedures, given the significant amount of time 
that has elapsed since the Consolidated Schedule was certified and the resulting uncertainty regarding 
the status of new Member States’ GATS commitments?  
 
By what date does the EC expect to complete the in ternal procedures necessary for entry into force of 
its Consolidated Schedule?   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 296  
 
 Answer
 
The EC internal procedure is not finalised yet, since in certain EU Member States, the national 
ratification procedures are not yet completed.  Subject to their respective constitutional requireme nts, the EU Member States, whose national 
ratification procedures are not yet completed, are doi ng their outmost to comple te such procedures as 
soon as possible. Additionally, also with a view  to further accelerate to national ratification 
procedures, the European Commission requested an opinion from the European Court of Justice, 
aimed at clarifying, among other issues, whether such national ratification by the EU Member States 
is really necessary. All these exten sive efforts by the EU Member States and by the European 
Commission are in line with the relevant provisions of the letters sent to the affected WTO members, 
under which the EC endeavoured to a ccelerate the internal approval pro cedures as much as possible.   
 
MEXICO
 
 
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES / 5) Servicios / i) Panorama general. 
 Pregunta 1 
México desearía saber en qué base de datos se puede encontrar la legislación en materia de servicios 
de los países de la Comunidad Europea.   
 
Respuesta
 
To our knowledge, there is no database in which the na tional legislation of all 27 EU Member States 
relating to services can be retrieved.   In any event, national legislation of all 27 EU Member States governing the numerous service sectors 
that fall within the scope of Directive 2003/123/EC  (Services Directive) will have to comply with the 
principles laid down in this Directive, whose text can be found in the following web site:  
http://ec.europa.eu/internal_marke t/services/services-dir/index_en.htm 
 
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES / 5) Servicios / ii) Servicios financieros 
 a) sector bancario /  b) Seguros.    
 
Pregunta 2 
En el párrafo 133 se menciona que las normas de las Di rectivas sobre seguros de la CE relativas a las 
compañías de seguros de terceros países sólo se refi eren al establecimiento de  sucursales y agencias 
en la CE.  México estaría interesado en conocer los requisitos para que una compañía de seguros 
extranjera se establezca en algún país de la Comunidad Europea. 
 
Respuesta
 
EU law makes no distinction about companies incor porated in the EU based on the nationality of 
their owners. All companies incor porated in the EU are treated in exactly the same way and are 
subject to the same rules set out in the life, non-life and reinsurance directives. With respect to 
branches of foreign insurance companies some specific  rules are provided for which relate to the 
business conducted through that branch in the case of non-life insurance and the operations effected 
by the branch in the case of life assurance. These include requirements to establish adequte technical 
provisions and to hold own funds to cover the re quired solvency margin related to the branches 
activities. With respect to the branches of reinsur ance companies no specific requirements are laid 
down at EU level. The treatment of branches of  foreign reinsurance companies remains a matter for 
Member States.  
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 297 
 
 
 Pregunta 3 
En el párrafo 55 señalan que desde el último EPC  de las CE se han hecho avances notables, en 
particular en los servicios financieros, de tel ecomunicaciones y postales. ¿Cuáles son estos avances 
concretos? 
 
Respuesta  
Since the first Postal Directive  in 1997 performance, quality and reliability of postal services in 
Europe have substantially increased to the benefit of all postal users. The third Postal Directive 
adopted in 2008 which fully open postal market s will further stimulate this process.  
Postal Services in the EU are co vered by the 1997 Postal Directive (97/67/EC) as amended by the 2 
following directives (2002 and 2008). This has created a robust regulatory framework which 
guarantees citizens a universal service, while gradually  limiting the scope of the reserved area 
(initially mail under 350 grams, amended in  2002 to 100 grams and reduced on 1/1/2006 to 
50 grams). The third Directive adopted in 2008 wa s based on a broad political consensus among EU 
institutions.   It aims at ensuring the best po ssible service through a gradual opening of the market, 
with a final date set for full opening in 2011 (and by derogation 2013). In the field of Financial Services
 work has continued according to the Financial Services Action Plan 
2005-2010. However, following the financial crises and ta king into account the outcome of the G20, 
there will be a fundamental review of regulat ory and supervisory legislation in the EU. 
The Commission has presented on March 4 an ambitious agenda to restore a stable financial system, support the real economy, propose social and empl oyment measures and contribute to the G-20 
London summit. Concerning financial services reg ulatory issues, these proposals cover five key 
areas: strengthening the supervisory architectur e, improving and removi ng gaps in regulation, 
protecting consumers, small investors and SMEs, im proving incentives to reduce excessive short-term 
risk-taking and improving sanctions for infringements of the rules.  
 When proposing its new strategy to restore financ ial stability, the Commission has stressed the need 
to maintaining openness within the internal ma rket, continuing to remove barriers and avoid creating 
new ones, ensuring non-discrimination by treati ng goods and services from other Member States in 
accordance with EU rules and T reaty principles and keeping the Single Market open to our trade 
partners and respect international commitments, in  particular those made in the WTO. 
 'Building a competitive digital Europe hi nging upon a functioning Internal Market for 
telecommunications ' is what the European Commission aims to  achieve. In this context sound policies 
and properly-tailored regulation represent the two pill ars of the European Commission’s action. If on 
the one hand it is a major EU policy objective to ac celerate the transition towa rd an open, technology 
neutral and competitive digital economy in Europe , on the other hand the Commission intends to set 
the broad framework ensuring that a coherent approac h is pursued by all reg ulators across the EU. 
The proposal for the review of the current EU Re gulatory Framework for electronic communications 
networks and services is under the scrutiny of the Eu ropean Parliament and the Council. With the 
reform the Commission wants to enhance regulatory predictability and legal certainty across the EU. 
In this respect the reforms to th e framework are intended to make su re that with the shift to Next 
Generation Access networks competition bottlen ecks can be removed and secure adequate access 
ensured, but also ensure the consistent application of the rules across all 27 Member States, without 
jeopardizing incentives to invest for any market players.  
 
Each year, the European Commission publishes a pr ogress report on the single European electronic 
communications market. The 14th Progress Report on the Single European Electronic Communication 
Market, which was released on 25 March 2009, presents the state of play in the telecoms market for 
2008 at EU level including mobile and for each Member State. The report can be found at: www.ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/eco mm/library/communications_reports/annualreports/
14th/index_en.htm  
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 298  
 
 Pregunta 4 
En el párrafo 57, ¿a que se refieren con determin adas disposiciones para una mayor liberalización de 
las telecomunicaciones y los servicios financieros?  
 
Respuesta
 
Please see answer to question 3. 
 
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, PO R SECTORES  /  5) Servicios  / iii) Servicios de 
 telecomunicaciones y servicios postales  
Pregunta 5 
En el párrafo 138 se señala que en el mercado de tele fonía móvil, la competencia ha aumentado con la 
entrada de nuevos operadores en el mercado. Desearíamos conocer de qué países provienen los nuevos operadores en el mercado a que se hace referencia.  
 
Respuesta
 
Each year, the European Commission drafts and publishes a progress report on the single European 
electronic communications market. The 14th Progress Report on the Single European Electronic 
Communication Market, which was released on 25 Ma rch 2009, presents the state of play in the 
telecoms market for 2008 at EU level and for ea ch Member State. The report can be found at: 
www.ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/eco mm/library/communications_reports/annualreports/
14th/index_en.htm .  As mentioned in the report, in the course of 2008,  a number of MVNOs entered the market. This was 
the case, for example, of Spain, France, Malta and Sweden. 
 Pregunta 6 
En el párrafo 143 se indica que el marco de la CE en  materia de servicios posta les preveía la apertura 
progresiva del mercado mediante la reducción gradual del área reservada (inicialmente, el correo por debajo de los 350 g, umbral que se redujo en 2002 a 100 g y que el 1º de enero de 2006 pasó a ser de 
50 g).  Podrían explicar en forma más detallada la s medidas encaminadas a la apertura progresiva del 
mercado en materia de servicios postales. 
 
Respuesta
 
Since the first Postal Directive in 1997 perform ance, quality and reliability of postal services in 
Europe have substantially increased to the benefit of all postal users. The third Postal Directive 
adopted in 2008 which fully open postal market s will further stimulate this process.  
Postal Services in the EU are covered by the 1997 Postal Directive (97/67/EC) as amended by the 
2 following directives (2002 and 2008). This has  created a robust regulatory framework which 
guarantees citizens a universal service, while gradually  limiting the scope of the reserved area 
(initially mail under 350 grams, amended in  2002 to 100 grams and reduced on 1/1/2006 to 
50 grams). The third Directive adopted in 2008 wa s based on a broad political consensus among EU 
institutions.   It aims at ensuring the best po ssible service through a gradual opening of the market, 
with a final date set for full opening in 2011 (and by derogation 2013).  IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES  /  5) Servicios  / iv) Transporte  / 
 a) Panorama general.     
 Pregunta 7 
En el párrafo 150 se menciona que en general, el comercio de servicios de transporte con países 
terceros se rige por acuerdos bilaterales con la CE  o con sus Estados miembros. México desearía saber 
si la Comunidad Europea tiene pr evisto continuar celebrando acuerdos  bilaterales en el sector de  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 299 
 
 
 transporte y de qué manera es tos acuerdos cumplen con la obligación de Trato de Nación Más 
Favorecida bajo la OMC.  
Respuesta
 
Air transport is excluded from the scope of WTO. Market access for air services is governed by the 
bilateral air services agreements based on the principl e of reciprocity. We will continue to promote 
maritime transport services in the WTO as well as  in bilateral agreements. The EU has an MFN 
exemption for maritime transport services in the GATS. 
 
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES  /  5) Servicios  / iv) Transporte /  
 d) Transporte marítimo / e) transporte aéreo.      
Pregunta 8 
En el párrafo 156 se hace referencia a que en 20 04, la Comisión adoptó directrices mejoradas para 
acelerar el proceso de reabanderamiento, animan do a los armadores a mantener el tonelaje que 
registran con pabellón comunitario,  so pena de perder las ayudas estatales que puedan recibir por 
embarcaciones adicionales que naveguen bajo pabell ón de países terceros. Desearíamos saber si las 
ayudas estatales se pueden perder aún cuando las emba rcaciones adicionales sean de países terceros 
que tienen un acuerdo bilateral con la Comunidad Europea. 
 
Respuesta
 
Yes. Any tonnage exceeding the flage-share requirement would be out of the tonnage tax. As a matter 
of fact, bilateral agreements on market a ccess are irrelevant in this context.  
 Pregunta 9 
En el párrafo 163 se indica que la ampliación del mercado único de la aviación a otros países es uno 
de los principales objetivos de la CE, y se basa en  tres pilares; uno de esos pilares es est ablecer áreas 
de aviación abiertas con otros interlocutores inte rnacionales, como con Australia, Nueva Zelanda y 
Chile. En septiembre de 2005, la Comisión propuso abrir negociaciones de amplio alcance sobre la 
aviación con esos tres países. México desea saber si  dichas negociaciones ya concluyeron, y en su 
caso tener más información sobre ellas.  Respuesta
 
The European Commission needs a specific mandate from the Council of the EU to enter into 
comprehensive air transport negotiations with a thir d country. On the basis of such mandates granted 
in June 2008, the European Commission started nego tiations with both Australia and New Zealand in 
November 2008 aiming at reciprocal market opening, liberalisation of investment opportunities and a 
high degree of regulatory coopera tion. Negotiations with both co untries are ongoing. The Council of 
the EU has not yet authorised the Commission to open  similar negotiations with Chile. Further to the 
countries mentioned, the European Commission has  negotiated an air transport agreement with 
Canada which will lead to the establishment of an Open Aviation Area between the EU and Canada. 
 
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES, POR SECTORES  /  5) Servicios  / vi) Servicios 
 profesionales / a) Servicios jurídicos / b) Servicios de contabilidad y auditoría / 
 c) Servicios de arquitectura / e) ingeniería.  
 
Pregunta 10 
En el párrafo 169 se señala que el subsector de servi cios profesionales se caracteriza por los elevados 
niveles de reglamentación restrictiva.  Por este motivo, la Comisión, junto a las autoridades nacionales 
de competencia, está examinando el marco normativo actual del subsector (fijado a menudo por los gobiernos nacionales) para eliminar las restricciones reglamentarias injustificadas.   México desearía 
saber si la Comisión ha concluido el examen de l marco normativo y si se han eliminado restricciones 
reglamentarias injustificadas. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 300  
 
 Respuesta
 
Directive 2006/123/EC (Services Directive) obliges EU  Member States to evaluate certain restrictions 
that generally apply to regulated professions. Fo r example, Member States will have to evaluate 
whether requirements on numerus clausus or fixed tariffs are justified by an overriding reason of 
general interest and proportionate. Under the Servi ces Directive, Member Stat es shall also ensure 
that restrictions to the exercise of multidisciplina ry activities by professional services are justified and 
proportionate in order to guarantee compliance w ith the rules governing professional ethics and 
conduct and necessary to ensure independence and impartiality.¨ 
 In addition, the Services Directive obliges EU Me mber States to remove all total prohibitions on 
commercial communications. The Services Directive also obliges Member States to ensure that 
professional rules on commercial communications are non-discriminatory, justified by an overriding reason relating to the public interest and proportionate.   The Services Directive has to be implemented by  Member States by 28 December 2009. The review 
and eventual modification of the legislation re quired by the Directive is currently underway. 
 Pregunta 11 
En el párrafo 170 se indica que los Estados miembros  han contraído determinados compromisos en el 
marco del AGCS en lo que se refiere a los servici os jurídicos, y no aplican restricciones a la 
prestación de servicios de consultoría por abogados ex tranjeros en el derecho del país de origen e 
internacional mediante el consumo en el extranje ro.  Para los demás modos de suministro se han 
especificado determinadas limitaciones al acceso a los mercados y el trato nacional. México desearía 
saber si la Comunidad Europea tiene previsto reducir dichas limitaciones.  
Respuesta
 
This issue, which falls outside the scope of Trade Policy Review, is to  be addressed in the framework of 
services negotiations under the DDA.  
 Pregunta 12 
En el párrafo 173 se menciona que los Estados miem bros no mantienen restricciones al consumo en el 
extranjero en el marco del AGCS en lo que se refier e a los servicios de contabilidad y auditoría, si 
bien se especifican ciertas limitaciones al acceso a los mercados y el trato nacional para el suministro 
de esos servicios a través del modo transfronterizo, la presencia comercial y el movimiento de personas físicas. Desearíamos saber si la Comunidad Europea contempla reducir limitaciones al acceso a los mercados y el trato nacional.  Respuesta
 
This issue, which falls outside the scope of Trade Policy Review, is to  be addressed in the framework of 
services negotiations under the DDA.  
 Pregunta 13 
En el párrafo 175  se señala que en el marco del AGCS se han especificado algunas limitaciones al acceso a los mercados y al trato nacional para el suministro de servicios de arquitectura e ingeniería a 
través del suministro transfronterizo y el movimiento de personas físicas. Desearíamos saber si la Comunidad Europea prevé eliminar limitaciones al suministro transfronterizo y al movimiento de personas físicas.   Respuesta
 
This issue, which is outside the scope of Trade Po licy Review, is to be addressed in the framework of 
services negotiations under the DDA  
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 301 
 
 
 Bienes agrícolas 
 Pregunta 14 
1) ¿Podría la Comunidad Europea presentar detalle s sobre apoyos agrícolas en lácteos?  En 
particular, nos interesa la informac ión de la restitución o aumento de  los reintegros a la exportación 
(incluyendo pagos al almacenaje) que se han otorga do desde el mes de enero pasado, así como del 
establecimiento de medidas como las "compras de intervención", a partir de este mes de marzo.  2) Será de gran utilidad tener información sobre la  evolución de estos instrumentos a la fecha y 
las perspectivas de la CE para el mediano y lar go plazo, tomando en consideración el contexto de 
crisis actual y el compromiso de la CE en la OMC para la eliminación de los subsidios a la 
exportación en 2013.   
Respuesta
 
1) The European Commission has opened the sch eme for granting aid on private storage for 
butter on 1 January 2009. This was two months earlier than usual. 
Refunds were fixed at zero in 2006 (SMP) and 2007 (WMO, butter, cheese) due to a particularly good 
market situation in 2007 and 2008. Due to the det eriorating market situation as of the second half of 
2008, the refunds were re-activated on 23 January 2009. Intervention of butter and skimmed milk powder opened on 1 March, as every year. For butter 30,000 
tonnes were offered for intervention at a fixed price of 221.8 euro/100kg in the first three days after 
which intervention at a fixed price was closed and a tender procedure opened. Intervention for SMP 
has not yet reached the ceiling for buying in at a fixed price of 169.8 euro/100kg. The ceiling for 
buying in SMP at a fixed price is 109,000 tonnes. Actual levels of quantities in private storage, intervention and prices paid in the tenders and refund 
levels can be found at: http://ci rca.europa.eu/Public/irc/agri/lait/library  
All support given is WTO compatible respecting WTO limits. 
 2) The 2009 private storage scheme for bu tter runs only until August 2009. A similar 
scheme will be opened again possibly in March  2010, depending on the market situation. 
The Commission has offered to eliminate refunds by 2013, if parallel commitments are made by other 
members of the WTO. If the dairy markets should improve, the amounts of refunds can be reduced 
again, as was done almost constantly since the re form of the Common Agricultural Policy decided in 
2003. The export subsidies on dairy products are well below EC's WTO commitments. 
Intervention will close at the end of August 2009 and will open again on 1 March 2010 applying the same principles as those valid in 2009.   
Pregunta 15 ¿Qué medidas de apoyo adicional está considerando implementar la CE en este o en otro sector?  
 
Respuesta
 
The EC expects the current support me asures to be sufficient to act as  an effective safety net for the 
sector. 
 
Instrumentos de política comercial  Pregunta 16  
En el párrafo 10, se menciona que "Algunas esfer as, como los procedimientos aduaneros, la 
tributación interior, los incentivos y los obstáculos t écnicos al comercio todavía no están totalmente 
armonizadas".   ¿De qué forma la UE ha contrarrestado los efectos negativos de la falta de armonización en relación 
con los operadores económicos sobre todo de terceros países?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 302  
 
 Respuesta
 
As can be seen from the Government Report §§ 11-13  (WT/TPR/G/214 page 6-7) there have been 
considerable achievements under the Customs Union.  Work is also progressing well with regard to 
Free movement of Goods between th e Member States. This is of real benefit to foreign as well as EU 
operators. With regard to indirect taxation there is yet no full harmonisation which might create 
certain obstacles but there are no discriminatory effects on foreign operators.  
 Acuerdos comerciales 
 
Pregunta 17 
En el párrafo 25, se menciona que "Como consecuencia de sus numerosos acuerdos preferenciales y 
su esquema del SGP, el régimen íntegramente NMF de las CE sólo se aplica a nueve Miembros de la 
OMC (Australia; Canadá; Estados Unidos; Hong Ko ng, China; Japón; Nueva Zelandia; República de 
Corea; Singapur; y Taipei Chino).  Estos nueve Miembros de la OMC proporcionaron el 27,5 por 
ciento de las importaciones totales de mercancías de las CE en 2007, frente a un 30 por ciento, 
aproximadamente, en 2005".  
 En el mismo reporte se menciona el actual proces o de negociación de la UE con la República de 
Corea, Centro América, países de ASEAN, la Comunidad Andina e India.  
 
¿Qué tipo de acuerdos se están negociando en cuanto  a alcance, formato y cobertura? y ¿Cuál es la 
fecha tentativa para conclusión de dichos procesos? 
 
¿La UE tiene planeado iniciar negociaciones come rciales con algún otro país a los que se aplica 
íntegramente el régimen NMF?.  Respuesta
 
Negotiations on RTAs between the EC and the Republic of Korea and members of ASEAN were 
launched in May 2007. Negotiations with India were launched in June 2007. Several rounds of 
negotiations have taken place, aiming to concl ude fully-fledged FTAs, cove ring trade in goods and 
services, rules, as well as le gal and institutional issues.   Negotiations on EC- Korea have made 
substantial headway and may conclude in the upcoming months. Meanwhile, EC-India and EC-
ASEAN negotiations continue to make progress but at  a slower pace, and therefore, it is difficult to 
foresee the tentative date for conclusion of negotiations.  The EC launched negotiations for a region-to region Association Agreement with the Andean 
Community (CAN) and with Central American count ries (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, 
Honduras, and Nicaragua) in 2007. These agree ments comprise of three components: political 
dialogue, co-operation and trade. They aim to rei nforce the political and economic stability of each 
region, foster sustainable development, enhance regional integration and establish an ambitious, 
WTO-compatible free trade area.  Negotiations with the CAN were opened in June 2007, but were 
interrupted after three rounds in June 2008 due  to apparent divergences among the CAN members on 
certain trade issues. Following this suspension, th e EC opened negotiations for a multiparty trade 
agreement with Peru, Colombia and Ecuador in Ja nuary 2009, with a common objective to conclude  
negotiations in 2009.  In turn, negotiations w ith Central American countries continue making 
progress with a view to concluding negotiations in 2009.  The EC has explored the possibility to enter in to trade negotiations with Canada. A Commission 
proposal for negotiating directives is due to be sent to the Council for discussion very shortly. The EC 
grants preferential market access mainly to developing countries, and it does so mostly on an 
autonomous basis. The EC grants solely MF N treatment to industrialized Members. 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 303 
 
 
 Políticas y prácticas comerciales por medida.  
 
Pregunta 18 
Se menciona que "El arancel común de las CE comp rende tipos ad valorem (89,9 por ciento) y no ad 
valorem (10,1 por ciento).  Estos últimos son esp ecíficos (el 6,5 por ciento de todas las líneas 
arancelarias), compuestos (el 2,8 por ciento) y mixtos o variables (el 0,8 por ciento).  Se aplican tipos 
no ad valorem a productos agrícolas (definición de  la OMC), muchos de los cuales están también 
sujetos a contingentes arancelarios.  El promed io de los aranceles NMF aplicados ha descendido 
ligeramente del 6,9 al 6,7 por ciento, con tipos que abarcan desde el 0 hasta el 604,3 por ciento 
(equivalente ad  valorem calculado utilizando datos de fecha 15 de enero de 2009) aplicado a la 
isoglucosa (SA 1702.40.10);  los productos agrícolas siguen siendo objeto de los tipos más altos." 
 Dada la complejidad del régimen arancelario NMF y su aplicación a cada vez menos miembros de la 
OMC, ¿La UE tiene planeado en el corto plazo algún tipo de simplificación de dicho régimen, incluyendo reducciones unilaterales, así como realizar ajustes al arancel común? 
 
Respuesta
 
The tariff simplification issues are under negotiation within the DDA. 
 We would like to highlight two issues which appear in this question: 
 
1) Mexico refers to 'variable tariffs' as indi cated in the report of the WTO Secretariat. 
The EC objects to the use of such wordi ng because it is wrong as the EC does not 
have variable tariffs. We have asked th e Secretariat to revise this expression. 
 2) Mexico also refers to the AVE of 604. 3% quoted in the WTO Secretariat's report. 
The EC does not agree with the AVEs calc ulated by the WTO Secretariat and the 
Secretariat has been informed of our dis agreement. The Secretariat has shared with 
us the details of its calculations. Ha ving analysed these, the EC questions the 
methodology used by the WTO Secretariat in its AVEs calculations. For instance, the 
EC  recalculated the AVE for this specific isoglucose tariff line 17024010, using 2007 
Comext data, and the resulting AVE is 133.3% for EU15, 128.57% for EU25, and 
22.43% for EU27. The WTO Secretariat has endeavoured to cross-check these 
calculations and ensure accurate calculations across its report. 
 Pregunta 19 
Considerando la amplia combinación de regímenes pr eferenciales de la UE y la falta de armonización 
de algunos procedimientos aduaneros en algunos est ados Miembros. ¿Cuál es la consecuencia que la 
UE ha tenido que enfrentar en la administración de preferencias arancelarias?   
Respuesta
 
As to the mentioned customs procedures in gen eral, they are harmonized in the EU through the 
Community Customs Code and its  implementing provisions. 
Although it is true that the EC has many pref erential arrangements, th e procedures and formalities 
for the implementation of the preferences are co mpletely harmonised throughout the Community by 
means of the directly applicable Community Cu stoms Code and its implementing provisions.  
 Pregunta 20 
En materia de Reglas de Origen preferencial es, ¿existen antecedentes en donde la UE haya 
modificado alguna regla de origen, después de ha ber entrado en vigor los acuerdos regionales?  
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 304  
 
 Respuesta
 
Some occasional amendments have been made to the ru les of origin in the EC's free trade agreements 
since their entry into force. Howe ver, these amendments were the r esult of extensive consultation and 
agreement with the partners to the Agreements. The EC can not modify  unilaterally any origin rule.  
 
Pregunta 21 ¿Cómo es el proceso y qué criterios se consideran para llevar a cabo la modificación de alguna Regla 
de Origen?  
Respuesta
 
Rules of origin laid down in internal Comm unity legislation (non preferential and autonomous 
preferential arrangements) can be modified according to the legislative procedures in force (proposal 
by the Commission, to be agreed by a majority of Member States). 
 
Amendments to rules of origin included in Ag reements can take place in accordance with the 
procedures determined in those Agreements.  
 Pregunta 22 
"En respuesta a la actual crisis económica y financie ra, el 26 de noviembre de 2008 la Comisión dio a 
conocer su Plan de recuperación económica, basado,  entre otras cosas, en un impulso presupuestario 
inmediato de 200.000 millones de euros (1,5 por ciento del PIB de las CE), constituido por 170.000 
millones de euros proporcionados por los Estados miembros y 30.000 millones de euros financiados 
por las CE.
64  Además, el Banco Europeo de Inversiones (BEI) aumentará su nivel anual de 
financiación en unos 30.000 millones de  euros durante el período 2009-201065, y también está 
previsto que el Banco Europeo de  Reconstrucción y Desarrollo (BERD) añada otros 500 millones de 
euros al año a su nivel actual de financiación en lo s nuevos Estados miembros.  El Plan se inscribe en 
el marco del Pacto de Estabilidad y Crecimiento y fue aprobado por el Consejo Europeo los días 11 y 
12 de diciembre de 2008." 
 
¿Estas acciones de recuperación económica implican ca mbios sustantivos en los objetivos de política 
comercial de la UE?  Respuesta
 
The EC would like to stress that there have been no changes in its trade policy objectives. The EC is 
committed to countering protectionist pressures by a ll possible means, and sees trade as an important 
part of the overall solution to the economic cri sis. Completing the Doha Round will provide an 
insurance policy against rising protectionism and further strengthen the world trading system. The 
EC sees the Doha Round as the most useful tool to counter protectionism in these times of economic 
downturn. Therefore, the EC continues to advocate for a swift conclusion of the negotiations. We look 
forward to a strong G-20 support in favour of the positive role of global trade in the current crisis.  
 
                                                      
64 El Plan también promueve la i nversión en las competencias adecuadas para satisfacer las necesidades 
futuras, en la eficiencia energética para crear puestos de  trabajo y ahorrar energía, en tecnologías limpias para 
fomentar actividades como la  construcción y los automóviles en los mercados de bajo uso de carbón del futuro, 
y en infraestructura e interconexión en aras de la eficiencia y la innovación (Comisión Europea, 2008a). 
65 La financiación del BEI adoptará la forma de un aumento de préstamos, capital social, garantías e 
intercambio de riesgos.  El BEI ofrecerá a las PYME pr éstamos por valor de 30.000 millones de euros, un 
incremento de 10.000 millones de euros respecto de sus préstamos habituales.  Asimismo, se proporcionarán 
cerca de 5.000 millones de euros a la industria del automóvil, y otros 5.000 millones de euros en el marco de 
proyectos de interconexiones energéticas transeuropeas y de infraestructura de banda ancha para 2009 y 2010.  La Comisión también pide a los bancos comerciales que reanuden su principal función de financiar las 
inversiones (información en línea de la Comisión Europea.  Consultada en:  http://ec.europa.eu/ 
economy_finance/thematic_articles/article13502_en.htm, 1º de diciembre de 2008).   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 305 
 
 
 Pregunta 23 
Algunos Estados Miembros han anunciado rescates o apoyos a la  Industria Automotriz (Francia, 
España, Italia), ¿cuáles son los detalles de estas ay udas y si habrá medidas que la UE notificará a la 
OMC en materia de subsidios o de los demás acuerdos de la OMC?   Respuesta
 
The Commission has not approved any individual state aid measure directed to the automotive 
industry. This does however not exclude that Member  States have granted aid to the car sector under 
aid schemes. Member States normally notify to th e Commission schemes cov ering the entire industry 
or a broad range of sectors.  The European Commissi on will notify any scheme if the conditions as set 
out in the WTO Agreement on Subsidi es and Countervailing Measures are met. 
 Pregunta 24 
En cuanto a la posibilidad de reformar el sistema fi nanciero internacional, ¿tie ne la UE una postura ya 
definida?  
 
Respuesta
 
The Conclusions of the last European Council, held in Brussels on the 19/20 of March 2009, highlighted twenty-four measures aimed to re-in vigorate the international financial system. These 
measures were divided in three fields of action: 
• Leading international action necessary to  promote a swift return to sustainable 
economic growth: 
• Strengthening our ability to manage and prevent crises at the global level 
• Better regulating financial markets. 
 
For further details, please check the European Council conclusions at: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/ cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/106809.pdf  
 Pregunta 25 
El programa marco, que abarca de 2007 a 2013 y cu enta con un presupuesto de 3.600  millones de 
euros, tiene por objeto fomentar la competitividad  de las empresas europeas impulsando la utilización 
de las tecnologías de la informaci ón, las tecnologías ambientales y las fuentes de energía renovables.
66  
¿Cuáles serán los principales planes enfocados a la competitividad de este sector?, ¿habrá apoyo 
financiero a las empresas y cómo funcionará? 
 
Respuesta  
The implementation of the Competitiveness and I nnovation Framework Progr amme (CIP), running 
from 2007 to 2013, follows strictly its legal basis67.  
The objectives of CIP are to foster the competiti veness of enterprises, in particular Small and 
Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs); to promote all fo rms of innovation, including eco-innovation; to 
accelerate the development of a sustainable, co mpetitive, innovative and inclusive Information 
Society; and to promote energy efficiency and new and renewable energy sources in all sectors, 
including transport.  These objectives are pursued through the impl ementation of three specific programmes: 
 
– the Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (EIP);  
                                                     
 
66 COM(2005) 121 final. 
67 Decision No. 1639/2006/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 2006 
establishing a Competitiveness and Innovation Fram ework Programme (2007 to  2013) (OJ L 310/15, 
9.11.2006).  For more information see the CIP portal under http://ec.europa.eu/cip/index_en.htm. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 306  
 
 – the Information and Communication Technology Policy Support 
 Programme (ICT-PSP); 
– the Intelligent Energy-Europe Programme (IEE).  
 
The CIP has a budget for the period 2007-2013 of EUR 3.6 billion. 
 
The EIP has a budget for the period 2007-2013 of less than EUR 2.2 billion. The budget for the ICT-PSP and IEE is EUR 730 million each for the period 2007-2013. 
 The funding is open to businesses or organisations fr om any sector as long as the applicants fulfil the 
criteria specified for each measure. Implementing th e CIP is carried out in respect of the Financial 
Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities. The funding granted shall 
fully comply with Community State aid rules a nd accompanying instruments (Article 6.2 of CIP 
Decision).  
The Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme (EIP) 
 The EIP targets particularly Small and Medium Size d Enterprises. Depending on the area of action, 
SMEs may benefit either directly (from improved a ccess to finance via financial instruments, from 
business and innovation services or fr om participating in pilot and market replication projects) or 
indirectly through policy support measures underpinni ng policies that aim to improve framework 
conditions for doing business. The CI P legal basis states that the EIP has the following objectives:  
Article 10 Establishment and objectives 1. The Entrepreneurship and Innovation Programme in support of enterprise, 
particularly SMEs, entrepreneurship, innovation, including eco-innovation 
and industrial competitiveness is hereby established. 
2. The Entrepreneurship and Innovati on Programme shall provide for action 
to support, improve, encourage and promote: (a) access to finance for the start-up and growth of SMEs and investment 
in innovation activities; 
(b) the creation of an environmen t favourable to SME cooperation, 
particularly in the field of cross-border cooperation; 
(c) all forms of innovation in enterprises; (d) eco-innovation; (e) entrepreneurship and innovation culture; (f) enterprise and innovation-rel ated economic and administrative 
reform. 
Eligibility criteria:   There is no harmonised approach with regard to eligib ility criteria in the EIP due to the variety of 
implementation mechanisms used and due to the na ture of the EIP being largely a policy support 
programme.  
 
Below is an overview of the main actions under the EIP:   The financial instruments  have as an overall objective the improv ement of access to finance for the 
start-up and growth of SMEs and investment in i nnovation activities, including eco-innovation, by: 
• increasing investment volumes of risk capital funds and other 
 investment vehicles; 
• providing leverage to SME debt  financing instruments and thus 
 increasing the supply of debt finance to SMEs.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 307 
 
 
 The CIP legal base provides the basis for the fi nancial instruments for SMEs, operated by the 
European Investment Fund (EIF) together with int ernational financial institu tions on behalf of the 
Commission: 
 
• The High Growth and Innovative SME Facility (GIF)  aims to increase 
the supply of equity for innovative SMEs in their early stages (GIF1) and in 
the expansion phase (GIF2).This facility has been operational since November 
2007 and is implemented by the European Investment Fund (EIF) on behalf of the Commission.  
• The SME Guarantee Facility (SMEG)
 provides counter- or co-
guarantees to guarantee schemes operating in eligible countries, and direct guarantees to financial intermediaries, in order to increase the supply of debt 
finance to SMEs. SMEG has been operational since September 2007 and is 
implemented by the EIF on behalf of the Commission.  
 
The Enterprise Europe Network  offers information support services and advice to businesses across 
Europe and helps them make the most of the oppor tunities in the European Union. The services are 
specifically designed for small and medium enterp rises (SMEs). The Enterprise Europe Network is 
made up of close to 600 partner organisations in more than 40 countries, promoting competitiveness 
and innovation at the local level in Europe and b eyond. The Network started its activities in January 
2008 and the network partners were select ed following calls for proposal.  
 The innovation projects and eco-innovation  pilot and market replication projects cover several fields 
such as support for innovation, e-skills, e-business,  clusters or studies. Regarding Eco-innovation, 
calls for proposals for pilot and market replica tion projects are launched every year focusing on: 
(a) cleaner production processes; (b) innovative environmentally-friendly products and service; (c) support to enterprises (especially SM Es) in greening their business, products 
 and management methods. 
 
Other policy support measures  cover policy analyses, studies and conferences. Such measures are 
often implemented by external organisa tions selected after calls for tender. 
 
The Information and Communication Technol ogy Policy Support Programme (ICT-PSP) 
 According to Article 26 of the CIP Decision, th e ICT Policy Support Programme provides for the 
following actions: 
 
• development of the Single European information space and 
 strengthening of the internal market for ICT products and 
 services and ICT-based products and services; 
• stimulation of innovation through the wider adoption of and 
 investment in ICT; 
• development of an inclusive information society and more 
 efficient and effective services in areas of public interest, and  improvement of quality of life. 
•  
Actions mainly focus on stimulating the uptake of  innovative ICT based services in areas of public 
interest such: health, ageing and inclusion, admin istrations, energy efficiency and environment, 
cultural heritage and education, security etc…  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 308  
 
 Projects are selected through an open call for pr oposals for co-financing pilot and networking 
actions. They have to be submitte d by consortia mixing services and technology providers and users. 
A portfolio of 22 projects has been launched following the first call for proposals and 19 proposals have been retained from the second call for being launched in early 2009.    
Consortium mixes: Overall, public bodies repres ent around 50% of participants in the selected 
proposals, SMEs represent ar ound 30%, and the rest concerns other types of organisations. 
 T
HE INTELLIGENT ENERGY -EUROPE PROGRAMME  
The main objective of the Intelligent Energy-Europe (IEE) Programme as set out in Article 37 of the 
CIP Decision is to contribute to secure sustai nable energy for Europe, while enhancing European 
competitiveness. It provides for action:  
 
• to foster energy efficiency and the rational use of energy 
 resources; 
• to promote new and renewable energy sources and to support 
 energy diversification; 
• to promote energy efficiency and the use of new and renewable 
 energy sources in transport. 
 
The IEE II Programme (2007-2013) builds on the exp erience gained from its predecessor, the first 
IEE Programme (2003-2006) and is enlarged und er CIP. The IEE II Programme is largely being 
implemented by means of grants (proposals selected  on the basis of either a call for proposals or 
concerted action) or procurement (calls for tender). 
 Further information : http://ec.europa.eu/cip/index_en.htm 
 Pregunta 26 
En los párrafos 73 al 75 se menciona "al Reglamento  sobre el Régimen para el Registro, Evaluación y 
Autorización de productos Químicos (Reglamento REACH), en vigor desde junio de 2007."  
 
¿Cuál es el estado actual de la implementación de REACH y qué acciones están llevando a cabo para 
atender las preocupaciones planteadas por terceros países (fabricantes no comunitarios) en el Comité 
de Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio?  
 
Respuesta
 
All the implementing measures have been adopted in a timely manner.  Specifically, we refer to the 
adoption of the Regulation 340/2008 on the fees and charges payable to the European Chemicals 
Agency, the Regulation 440/2008 laying down test methods, the Regulation 1238/2007 of 23 October 
2007 on laying down rules on the qualifications of the members of the Board of Appeal of the 
European Chemicals Agency and the Regulation (EC) No. 771/2008 of 1 August 2008 laying down 
the rules of organisation and procedure of the Boar d of Appeal of the European Chemicals Agency.  
In addition, all the necessary arrangements have b een at the Agency to set up all the committees 
foreseen under REACH.  The Forum and the helpdesks are also active.  
Regarding the concerns expressed at the TBT committ ee, we note that the EC has responded all of 
them and that many of the concerns expressed have contributed to shaping the final form of the  
REACH Regulation or have been taken into considera tion in the context of the development of the 
guidance documents.  It is noted also that th e EC has spent significant resources in technical 
assistance to third countries, in response to requests made at the TBT committee. 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 309 
 
 
 Pregunta 27 
En el párrafo 84 se hace referencia al nuevo Re glamento sobre Límites Má ximos de Residuos (LMR) 
de plaguicidas en alimentos, que entró en vigor  el 1 de septiembre de 2008 y a la aplicación por 
defecto de un LMR de 0.01 mg/kg a "plaguicid as no especificados". En virtud de que el 
establecimiento arbitrario de un valor por defecto pudiera ser inconsistente c on el Acuerdo de MSF de 
la OMC.  
¿Podrían explicarse las acciones a tomar para ev itar una afectación a las exportaciones de productos 
alimenticios originarios de los países en desarrollo?  
 
Respuesta  
The harmonisation has represented a big advance in terms of trade because it has clarified and 
simplified the MRL situation at EU level. Therefore, there is not any more a need of "national MRLs". For all those substances non-specified, the EC do no t have enough information,  especially concerning 
the toxicological endpoints and residue trials to set  MRLs. Therefore, the EC are not able to set any 
MRLs different from the limit of determination (LOD) in order to avoid any risk for potential 
European consumers.  
About your request for actions to help developi ng countries, the EC could set MRLs for third 
countries (as import tolerances) if it is requested by them in accordance with the articles 6 and 7 to 
Regulation 396/2005.   Pregunta 28 
En el párrafo 92 se señala que las CE están revisando su legislación sobre nuevos alimentos.  
¿Cuál es el estado actual de dicha revisión?, ¿qué acciones tomará la UE para atender las preocupaciones de diversos países miembros de la OMC ante el Comité MSF, sobre todo respecto a la 
definición y reconocimiento de los "alimentos tradic ionales" de terceros países en el reglamento 
propuesto? 
 
Respuesta
 
The EC is working on the proposal for Novel Foods with the European Parliament. The new proposal 
which is currently under consideration will take into a ccount of historical records on safe food use in 
the country of origin and other provisions to facilita te the approval of such novel foods. If the history 
of safe food use in the country of origin has been  demonstrated, the food could be placed on the 
market on basis of a notification of the food business operator intending to market the food.  
 Pregunta 29 
En referencia al Libro Verde sobr e la calidad de los productos agrí colas en la UE, presentado para 
consulta pública en octubre de 2008, se observa que las normas y reglamentos creados en el marco de 
dicha propuesta (y futuro proyecto de legislación) pudieran ser contradictorios con los compromisos 
de la UE en la OMC, particularmente en el Acue rdo sobre OTC y en el Acuerdo sobre MSF. En este 
sentido, ¿podría la UE dar más detalles sobre este te ma?, ¿la UE ha vislumbrado alguna medida para 
evitar afectar las exportaciones de terceros países al mercado comunitario?  
Respuesta
 
The purpose of the Green Paper was to invite co mments from interested parties with a view to 
participating in the policy-making process. It was made available on the EC website in all WTO 
languages (and all other EU languages). The EC were  very pleased to receive comments from several 
third countries (and regret that Mexico did not ta ke the opportunity to respond with its particular 
concerns). The EC are now preparing a policy document that will set out the stra tegic orientations for 
the development of agricultural pro duct quality policy. However, legislative proposals are unlikely to 
be brought forward before 2010. The EC will ensure, as always, that its proposals are compatible 
with WTO obligations including those under the TBT and SPS Agreements, and including procedural requirements of notification and the EC would welcom e representations from Mexico at any of these 
stages of the policy-making process. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 310  
 
 Políticas comerciales por sectores 
 
Pregunta 30 
El reporte menciona que el sector manufacturero (d efinición de la CIIU) a porta alrededor de una 
quinta parte de la producción de las CE;  represen ta unas tres cuartas partes de las exportaciones de 
mercancías y sigue siendo uno de los principales bene ficiarios de la ayuda estatal. ¿En qué consisten 
las ayudas estatales a este sector?  
Respuesta
 
Aid to the manufacturing sector can be of several different types. In essence, the manufacturing sector 
can benefit from all types of horiz ontal aid that the Member States can grant to their manufacturing 
companies under the condition of course that that cert ain requirements are met.  Such horizontal types 
of aid can extend to the following categories:  
 
• aid for environmental protection,  
• aid for R&D&I,   
• employment aid, 
• training aid, 
• aid for small and medium sized enterprises, 
• regional aid (i.e. aid to manufac turing companies in disadvantaged 
 regions), 
• aid for risk capital, 
• aid for the rescue and restructuring of firms in difficulty. 
 
In addition, and specifically in response to the temporary crisis, aid can be granted to the 
manufacturing sector on the basis of th e Temporary Framework for aid measures68.  
 In the last months of 2008, it became evident that  the total failure of the fin ancial system started to 
undermine the real economy. As a re sult of the credit squeeze, otherw ise healthy companies started 
having difficulties getting access to the financing that they needed. In December 2008, the 
Commission therefore also adopted a temporary fram ework for State aid measures to support access 
to finance, is applicable horizontally to all sectors.  Under this framework, Member States are allowed 
to grant (under certain circumstances), the following types of measures:  
• a lump sum of up to €500,000 per company for the next two years; 
• state guarantees for loans at a reduced premium; 
• subsidised loans (in particular for th e production of green products meeting 
environmental protection standards) 
• risk capital aid up to €2.5 million per SM E per year in cases wh ere at least 30% 
of investment cost comes form private investors. 
 
It should be emphasized, however, that the above me asures have been introdu ced to address the very 
specific and exceptional problems created as a result of  the financial crisis. They will be "temporary" 
in nature and will expire in 2010. 
 Member States must notify schemes that  fully comply with the conditions  set for these types of aid. If 
the Member States fully cooperate and provide adequat e information to show such compliance, the 
Commission approves the aid schemes quickly and indivi dual aid granted under such schemes then do 
not have to be notified. 
 
                                                     
 
68 Communication  from the Commission – Temporary Community Framework for State aid measures 
to support access to finance n the current financ ial and economic crisis, (OJ C 16/1) 22.1.2009.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 311 
 
 
 By 17 March 2009, the Commission had approved 19 Member States' aid schemes on the basis of the 
Temporary Framework. They involved, among other things , guarantees, subsidised interest rates, risk 
capital schemes and aid for the production of green produc ts. For further details, i.e. what type of aid 
was approved in which Member State and whic h industry, please see the following link: 
 
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.d o?reference=MEMO/09/111&format=HTML&aged=0
&language=EN&guiLanguage=en  
 Derechos de propiedad intelectual  
Pregunta 31 En el párrafo 203 se menciona que "La Comisi ón aspira a establecer un marco jurídico sólido 
aplicando a la falsificación y piratería  un en foque más práctico y de "tolerancia cero".  
Autoridades europeas han incautado medicinas genéricas en tránsito hacia terceros países, lo cual se 
puede considerar como obstáculos a las exportaci ones y contrario a las disposiciones del ADPIC. 
¿Cómo tomará la UE en cuenta este aspecto para el  establecimiento  del marc o jurídico al que aspira 
para luchar contra la falsificación y la piratería?  
Respuesta
 
The EC confirms that combating counterfeiting and pi racy is a priority and its ambition is to build a 
robust legal framework by demonstrating a mo re practical and "zero tolerance" approach to 
counterfeiting. This approach does not apply to the legitimate trade in generi c medicines. In this 
respect, the EC recalls that it attaches great im portance to facilitating access to medicines for 
developing countries and agrees that actions agains t counterfeit products should not be at the 
expense of legitimate trade in generic medicine. However, the customs authorities are fully entitled, 
including from the from the point of view of international law, to inspect goods in transit suspected to 
infringe intellectual property rights so that, if need  be, they can take measures to stop the traffic of 
potentially dangerous products, such  as for example fake medicines.  
 Vino y alcohol   Pregunta 32 
En el párrafo 54 se menciona que "Las subvencion es a la destilación de variedades de uva "de doble 
finalidad" para producir, entre otras cosas, coñac, y eliminar el excedente de vino en la región 
francesa de Charentes, fueron s uprimidas por la reforma de 2008." 
¿A qué otras bebidas o en que qué otras regiones de  la CE se tiene pensado suprimir las subvenciones 
a la destilación de este tipo de uvas?  Respuesta
 
In the past few years, the only significant use of the distillation scheme for dual purpose grape 
varieties was in the Fren ch region of Charentes. 
 Tratado de Lisboa 
 
Pregunta 33 
En el párrafo 14 se señala que "el Tratado de Niza  establece los objetivos generales de la política 
comercial de las CE…" 
 
¿Habrá cambios significativos en los objetivos y form a de operar de la política comercial de la UE en 
caso de que el tratado de Lisboa entre en vigor?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 312  
 
 Respuesta
 
The Treaty of Lisbon amends the current Artic le 131 TEC (which would become Article 206 TFEU) 
to include "the progressive abolition of restri ctions [...] on foreign direct investment " as an 
additional objective. The revised article also exp licitly extends the scope beyond the lowering 
of customs barriers to "other barriers ". 
Please refer to article 206 TFEU (ex Article 131 TEC): "By establishing a customs union in 
accordance with Articles 28 to 32, the Union sha ll contribute, in the common interest, to the 
harmonious development of world trade, the progr essive abolition of restrictions on international 
trade and on foreign direct investment, and the lowering of customs and other barriers." 
 
Pregunta 34 
¿Cómo cambia de manera específica el Tratado de Lisboa la competencia de la Comisión Europea en 
materia comercial, incluyendo sobr e todo el tema de Inversión? 
 
Respuesta  
The Treaty of Lisbon will extend the scope of th e existing Commission competences to the field of 
foreign direct investment.  
Please refer to Article 207 §1 TFEU  (ex Article 133 § 1 TEC): "The common commercial policy shall 
be based on uniform principles, particularly with re gard to changes in tariff rates, the conclusion of 
tariff and trade agreements relating to trade in goods and services, and the commercial aspects of 
intellectual property , foreign direct investment, the achievement of uniformity in measures of 
liberalisation, export policy and measures to protect trade  such as those to be taken in the event of 
dumping or subsidies. The common commercial poli cy shall be conducted in the context of the 
principles and objectives of the Union's external action."  Pregunta 35 
¿Podrían las CE explicar cuáles serán las nuevas atribuciones del Parlamento Europeo en el tema de 
comercio internacional en virtud del Tratado de Lisboa?  
Respuesta
 
The Treaty of Lisbon will amend the current ar ticle 133 §2 TEC(to become Article 207 §2 TFEU) so 
that "the European  Parliament  and the Council, acting by means of regulations in accordance with 
the the ordinary legislative procedure , shall adopt the measures defining the framework for 
implementing the common commercial policy." According to the current article 133 §2 TEC it is the Council alone that decides on this matter. The 
"ordinary legislative procedure" very mu ch corresponds to the current "co-decision 
procedure", which makes the EP an equal co-legis lator to the Council on the matters concerned. 
Furthermore, the Treaty of Lisbon will change th e current article 133 §3 TEC (to become article 207 
§3 TFEU) in that way that the Commission shall not only report
 regularly to the special committee 
appointed by the Council on the progress of negotiations, but also to the European Parliament.  
 Evolución del mercado interior y de los elementos principales de política general 
 
Pregunta 36 ¿Podrían ofrecer más detalles sobre la competencia y funciones de la nueva Agencia Ejecutiva de 
Competitividad e Innovación (AECI)?. 
 
Respuesta
 
The European Commission's Executi ve Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation (EACI) is one of a 
number of Executive Agencies established by the European Commission to put policies into action 
more efficiently and with improved results.  Located in Brussels, the EACI is operational since 2005 and its official lifetime runs until 2015. It was 
previously known as the Intellig ent Energy Executive Agency (IEEA).  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 313 
 
 
 Since 2008, the remit of the EACI encompasses th e management of three funding schemes and a 
business network: 
• The Intelligent Energy – Europe (IEE)  programme funds European projects 
which promote energy efficiency, renewable energy sources and sustainable mobility and supports th e European coordination of local and regional 
actions in the field of energy. 
• The CIP Eco-innovation initiative calls for first application and market 
replication projects in the area of materials and process recycling; buildings; the food and drink sector and greening business including green purchasing and procurement. 
• The Marco Polo programme funds projects that aim at making the transport 
of goods more sustainable in Europe by shifting freight off the road to the sea, rail and inland waterways while reducing the congestion on European 
roads. 
• The European Commission's Enterprise Europe Network (EEN) is made up of 
nearly 600 partner organisations in more than 40 countries and offers support and advice to businesses across Eu rope to help them improve their 
competitiveness and innovation standing. 
 
The Agency reports to three Directorates-Gen eral of the European Commission - Energy and 
Transport (TREN), Enterprise and Industry (ENT R), and Environment (ENV) – which remain 
responsible for programming and evaluation. For more information on the EACI, plea se visit: http://ec.europa.eu/eaci  
 
Preferencias autónomas 
 Pregunta 37 
Párrafo 67. El 22 de julio de 2008 se adoptó un nuevo Reglamento por el que se prorroga el régimen 
del SGP desde el 1º de enero de 2009 hasta el 31 de diciembre de 2011. ¿Que se tiene contemplado 
para el futuro? 
 
Respuesta
 
The GSP scheme operates within a cycle of ten yea rs. The present cycle began in 2006 and will expire 
in 2015. It is established on the basis of the Commission's Communication from 7 July 2004 on the function of the Community's GSP system for th e ten year period from 2006-2015 (COM(2004) 461- 
Official Journal C 242 of 29.9.200 4), which lays down the basic guidelines and objectives for the GSP 
until 2015. These guidelines are then implemented by  the GSP implementing Regulations applying for 
3 years, at a time which ensures that the GSP can be  updated as a regular basis which remains within 
a stable and predictable framework.  The first GSP scheme of the p resent cycle entered into force on 1 January 2006 and expired on 
31 December 2008 (Council regulation (EC) N o980/2005). The present GSP Council Regulation 
entered into force on 1 January 2009 and will expire at the end of 2011. To ensure the continuity of 
the scheme the last GSP Council Regulation under th is ten year cycle will be valid since 2012 until 
2015. It is foreseen that the next GSP Regulation will follow the same basic current provisions to 
assure stability and transparency of the GSP scheme.  
 
Pregunta 38 La iniciativa "Todo menos armas" otorga a los PMA acceso libre de derechos y de contingentes a los 
mercados de las CE;  en el caso del arroz y el azúcar, este tipo de acceso se introducirá en 2009. ¿A 
través de cuál publicación se introdujo esta medida? 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 314  
 
 Respuesta
 
The transition period for phasing out tariff-rate quotas on sugar and rice under the Everything But 
Arms initiative (EBA) is envisaged in article 11 of the present GSP Regulation. (Council Regulation 
(EC) No 732/2008) The duty-free, quota free regime for Least-Deve loped Countries (LDCs) will be applied since 
1 October 2009 for sugar (products under tariff heading 1701) and since 1 September 2009 for rice 
(products under tariff heading 1006)  Comercio y desarrollo   
Pregunta 39 En cuanto a la herramienta denominada Export He lpdesk la UE menciona en su reporte que está 
sujeta a mejoras constantes, sin embargo,  de mane ra frecuente encontramos que se omite informar el 
conjunto de las normas que inciden en los productos a exportar.  
¿Qué espera la UE para subsanar estas deficiencias y,  en general, mejorar la calidad de la información 
que ofrece?  Respuesta
 
The Export Helpdesk is an online service provided by the European Commission to facilitate market 
access for exporters in developing countries.  Thou gh its objective is to be as comprehensive and 
updated as possible so as to assist economic operators in the developing countries, the Export 
Helpdesk is not meant to replace the other official  sources of the European Union, such as the 
Official Journal or the respective websites of the competent services.  
 
As regards the Requirements and Taxes section of the Export Helpdesk, which provides information 
on the import requirements into the EU and the Member States on a product basis,  it is being 
updated on a quarterly basis.  This explains why there can be a timelag between the adoption of a new legisltative measure and its  inclusion in the Export Helpdesk. To reflect this and inform our 
users, we are currently working on the inclusion of the latest date of revision of the information. 
 Finally, it needs to be recalled that the Export Help desk is totally free of charge and of access and 
that, as a trade facilitation tool, it is a very compre hensive source of information. Furthermore, its 
approach of providing this  range of information systematically  by product code is unique among 
comparable web-based tools. 
 
Preguntas sobre contrataciones públicas. 
 
Párrafo 97: "Las Directivas son aplicables a contratos con un valor superior a los umbrales. Párrafo 98: pueden utilizarse procedimientos abie rtos, restringidos y negociados; las autoridades 
eligen cuándo utilizar los métodos abiertos o restring idos; no hay criterios espec íficos para determinar 
cuándo debe utilizarse cada método".  
Pregunta 40 
¿De qué manera se da cumplimiento a los compromisos de tratados dado que éstos sí establecen criterios para determinar el tipo de procedimiento a utilizar? 
 
Respuesta
 
Neither the GPA nor any other bilateral agreement on procurement to which the EU is a Party 
provides for any criteria for the use of open or sel ective tendering (open and restricted tendering in 
the EU directives terminology). The situation is different for the limited tendering with or without 
publication (negotiated procedure with or w ithout prior publication in the EU directives 
terminology). The GPA as well as the other bilatera l agreements to which the EU is a Party provides 
for the possibility to use the negotiated proce dure with prior publication without any specific  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 315 
 
 
 condition to be fulfilled as long as the contracting aut hority has indicated its in tention to negotiate in 
the notice of intended procurement. Under the EU procurement directives, this procedure can only be 
followed in a limited number of cases. As the EU regi me is stricter, it is fully GPA compliant. As far 
as the negotiated procedure without prior publica tion is concerned, the GPA and the EU directives 
include the same list of situations under wh ich recourse can be made to this procedure. 
 
Pregunta 41 
Indiquen, por favor, de qué manera se relaci onan las Directivas y el marco normativo de 
contrataciones públicas en general con los compromi sos de las Comunidades Europeas en el ámbito 
internacional –no comunitario-.  
 
Respuesta  
The obligations stipulated by the EU directives  govern procurement above a certain value where the 
EU considers that procurement above these thres holds triggers cross-border interest. Therefore 
procurement opportunities above a certain threshold must be advertised EU wide and must follow 
uniform procedure. Below these thresholds Member States do not need to apply the detailed rules of 
the directives. However, their legislation must fo llow the principles of the EC Treaty, e.g. non 
discrimination, transparency and equal treatment.  The EU uses the procurement directives as a referen ce for its international commitments. It does not 
impose or request engagements which do not exist  in the intra-EU procurement legislation. 
 
Párrafo 101: "resulta sumamente complicado dete rminar la nacionalidad de los proveedores 
adjudicatarios […] por lo que no se dispone de datos sobre el valor de los contratos de origen no 
comunitario".  
Pregunta 42 
En estas circunstancias, ¿cómo se cumplen los compromisos de tratados en relación con el suministro 
de información? Si bien el artículo 31 del Título  III de la Decisión 2/2000 del TLCUEM establece que 
en la medida en que se disponga de información al respecto cada Parte proporcionará estadísticas 
sobre el país de origen de los productos adquiridos y los servicios contratados por sus entidades, ¿se 
han planteado las autoridades de las Comunidades Europeas alguna  medida para  lograr que dicha 
información esté disponible? En caso afirmativo, ¿podrían describirla?  
 
Respuesta
 
Identifying the actual nationality of a firm is extremel y difficult as the structur e of its capital is not 
always known and the potential nationality of the bidder does not necessarily reflect the trade flow 
resulting from the contract award. The EC is curre ntly considering how to implement the principles 
laid down in Regulation (EC) No 716/2007 of th e European Parliament and of the Council of 
20 June 2007 on Community statis tics on the structure and activity of foreign affiliates  [Official 
Journal L 171 of 29.06.2007] and the Recommendations Manual on the Production of Foreign Affiliates Statistics in the area of public proc urement (please refer to the following website 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_O FFPUB/KS-RA-07-002/EN/KS-RA-07-002-EN.PDF). 
 
Pregunta 43 Sírvanse describir brevemente cómo se llevan a cabo en la práctica los procedimientos de 
presentación, recepción y apertura de ofertas y de  adjudicación de contratos, en particular los 
procedimientos y condiciones que garantizan la regul aridad de la apertura y su compatibilidad con las 
disposiciones sobre la no discriminación del Título III del Tratado de Libre Comercio entre México y 
la Unión Europea. 
 
Respuesta
 
In accordance with Title III of the decision 2/2000 of the EC- Mexico Joint Council of 
23 March 2000, Mexican companies enjoy the bene fit of national treatment and non-discrimination WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 316  
 
 principles in participating to procurement procedures  in the EU under the conditions laid down in the 
Agreement. Article 29 provides that " […] the Community sha ll apply the rules and procedures specified in Part B 
of Annex XII". This section lists the relevant GPA rul es of procedure to be applied by EU contracting 
authorities. As far as the rules on the presentati on, receipt and opening of the tenders are concerned, 
the principles of article XIII of the GPA correspond entirely to the principles of non discrimination, 
transparency and equal treatment on which the EU procurement directives are built. The detailed 
measures (the step by step procedure to be follo wed) are then implemented in the EC's Member State 
legislation.  
Pregunta 44 Sírvanse identificar las disposiciones de su le gislación que estipulan los parámetros para el 
establecimiento de especificaciones técnicas por l as entidades como parte de los criterios de 
evaluación.  Respuesta
 
The EU procurement regime includes specific rules aiming at defining the technical specifications of 
the supplies, service or works to be procured ( see article 34 and annex XXI of directive 2004/17/EC; 
article 23 and annex VI of directive 2004/18/EC). The EU wishes to clarify that under the EU directives, technical specifications are not part of th e award criteria. They serve as a description of 
the subject-matter of the contract. 
Technical specifications shall as a rule afford equal access for tenderers and not have the effect of 
creating unjustified obstacles to the opening up of public procurement to competition. Technical 
specifications shall be set out in the contract doc umentation (notice of intended procurement, tender 
documentation or any additional documentation). The directives provide that the technical specifications  shall be defined by the contracting authorities:  
- either by reference to national standards im plementing European standards, or by reference 
 to European technical approvals or by refe rence to common technical specifications. In 
 practical terms, this provisi on should be interpreted as requiring contracting authorities to 
 define the technical specifications for the goods , services or works to be supplied/provided – 
 except in exceptional cases - by reference to  national standards transposing European 
 standards or to European technical approv als or to common technical specifications 
 wherever they exist;  
- or in terms of performance or functional re quirements: such parameters  must be sufficiently 
 precise to allow tenderers to  determine the subject-matter of the contract and to allow 
 contracting authorities to award the contract.   
There is a general ban in the EU directives on te chnical specifications which mention goods of a 
specific make or source or of  a particular process and which have the effect of favouring or 
eliminating certain enterprises or products. Amo ng the specifications that can have such a 
discriminatory effect, and are therefore prohibited, the Directives mention in particular the indication 
of trade marks, patents, types or a specific origin or production.  
 
Medio Ambiente 
 
En el párrafo 71 se indica que la Comunidad Eur opea está instrumentando una política de combate al 
cambio climático, la cual incluye objetivos de re ducción de las emisiones de carbono más agresivas.  
 
Pregunta 45 La Comunidad Europea persigue objetivos más agresi vos ¿Cuáles son los térmi nos de referencia la 
línea base para determinar el nivel de reducción?    WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 317 
 
 
 Respuesta  
Our baseline is 1990-  the base year for the Kyoto Protocol.   Pregunta 46 
¿Cuáles son los sectores productivos previstos para reducir sus niveles de emisiones de carbono?  
 
Respuesta
 
Our targets are economy wide and all sectors will c ontribute. Under our recently agreed Climate and 
Energy Package, some sectors are covered by the EU wide cap set for the EU Emissions Trading 
Syste. This covers more than 40% of our Co2 em issions, including emissions from: power and heat, 
refineries, metals, minerals, pulp and paper (a full deta ils are found in Annex 1 to the directive, which 
can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/c limat/emission/implementation_en.htm. The rest of 
the economy will be covered under national targets agreed under the effort sharing decision. (see 
http://ec.europa.eu/environme nt/climat/climate_action.htm) 
 
Pregunta 47 Sírvanse proporcionar, en la medida de lo posible , una evaluación de las implicaciones de la política 
de cambio climático en térmi nos de costos y beneficios para la industria europea. 
 
Respuesta
 
The impacts of the climate and energy Packaged fo r European industry and others was assessed as 
the policy was developed. Please see the impact assessment for details at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/c limat/pdf/sec_2008_85_ia_es.pdf.  Furt her details are provided in 
the annex to the impact assessment:  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/pd f/climat_action/climate_package_ia_annex.pdf 
 
Pregunta 48: ¿Que medidas de mitigación han sido o deberían ser adoptadas por la Comunidad Europea que 
representen un beneficio para el comercio de bienes y servicios?   
Respuesta
 
All mitigation measures pursued by the EU (such as emission trading, energy and fuel efficiency 
policies and standards, use of renewable energy, etc) encourage or require the development and 
deployment of technology and goods  that facilitate energy-efficie ncy and low-carbon production and 
the increased use of renewable en ergy. Therefore, increased opportunities are likely to appear for 
trade in environmental goods, technologies and services.  
 
Pregunta 49 En el marco de las negociaciones de la OMC, Co munidad Europea promueve el establecimiento de 
una lista de bienes ambientales? ¿C uál es la lista de bienes ambienta les de interés para su región? 
 
Respuesta
 
The EU, together with other countries (the so-calle d Friends of Environmen tal Goods), has submitted 
a list of environmental goods proposed for libera lisation at the WTO. The list is included in 
submission JOB (07)/54 to the WTO CTE SS, dated 27.04.2007. See also attached. 
 
En el párrafo 72 se hace referencia a otros in strumentos de política comercial que pueden ser 
importantes en relación con los objetivos del camb io climático, entre los que se menciona la 
certificación de los productos obtenid os de la explotación r ecursos naturales y el etiquetado voluntario 
o privado.  
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 318  
 
 Pregunta 50 
¿En qué medida estas acciones acción climátic a podrán limitar la posib le aplicación de la 
discrecionalidad de las autoridades ambientales sobre las políticas comerciales?   
Respuesta
 
The EC pays a close attention on the effects of its  climate change policies on other policy areas such 
as international trade. Significant efforts are made to ensu re policy coherence between these areas 
and to guarantee that climate change action does not  hinder international trade. As a result the EC 
choose to pursue climate change measures and actions that have the least trade restrictive effect and 
do not discriminate against non-European economic actors.  
 
Pregunta 51 
¿Qué información deberá proporcionar los producto s para aplicar un proceso de certificación y 
cumplir con los requisitos adicionales para certif icarse como inocuos a la condición climática? 
 Respuesta
 
Paragraph 72 of the EC reports of the report refers to various policy instruments, like certification 
and labelling, which could potentially  play a positive role in fighting climate change. When exploring 
options for the use of these meas ures, the EC will consider the overall effects on different policy 
objectives, not just on climate policy, and ensure that  the measures do not restrict international trade.  
 
At this stage, the EC does not have a list of produc ts that it plans to subject to certification in the 
future.   A climate change related certification scheme exis ts only for biofuels. The scheme addresses the 
sustainability of biofuels produced inside and outsid e the EU. Biofuels meeting the criteria will count 
towards the EU target for the use of renewable energy. Products that do not meet the criteria will still 
be able to enter the EU market. The criteria add ress greenhouse gas emissions, carbon stock loss and 
biodiversity.  Regarding labelling, in the EU, we can talk about the existence of  private voluntary labelling schemes 
that address carbon content and climate change eff ects of the products. These schemes are not 
mandatory and not regulated on the Community level. 
 Pregunta 52 
¿Actualmente, la comunidad europea dispone de una lista de los productos (preliminar) que puedan 
sujetarse a la certificación?  
 
Respuesta
 
Please see answer to question 51.  Pregunta 53 
¿Cuáles son las referencias internacionales (acuerdos , normas y lineamientos) en la aplicación de este 
tipo de etiquetado con fines de combate a este problema ambiental? 
 
Respuesta
 
Please see answer to question 51.  
Pregunta 54 ¿Existe una normativa a nivel comunitario para determ inar la información que de berá estipularse en la 
etiqueta de dichos productos?   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 319 
 
 
 Respuesta  
Please see answer to question 51. 
 
ECUADOR  
 
Informe de la Secretaría de la OMC WT/TPR/S/214 
 
II. REGÍMENES DE COMERCIO E INVERSIÓN 
2) FORMULACIÓN Y APLICACIÓN DE LAS POLÍTICAS 
 En el párrafo 13 se señala que desde 1999, la Co misión ha mantenido un diálogo regular con la 
sociedad civil con vistas a hacer que la formulaci ón de su política comercial sea más transparente y 
participativa.  
Pregunta 1 
¿Podría proporcionar mayor información acerca de lo s mecanismos que se utilizan para promover el 
diálogo entre la sociedad civil y la Comisión así co mo de los resultados concretos que se han logrado 
con el mismo?   
Respuesta
 
Since 1998, the EC has been organising regular m eetings with civil society organisations. The 
objective is to inform civil society about trade poli cy and to hear their views as an input to European 
trade policy-making. The dialogue serves as a fo rum for transparency, consultation and debate and 
helps to improve the understanding and ownership of  trade policy. Most meetings take place in 
Brussels with the presence of the Commissioner or senior staff of the Directorate-General for Trade. 
The agenda of meetings reflect the EC trade policy ag enda and the particular interests of civil society, 
including WTO DDA negotiations and EC bilatera l trade negotiations. Civil society organisations 
that attend these meeting represent a wide variet y of interests, both business associations, non-
governmental organisations, as well as organised la bour unions and employers’ associations, and the 
European Economic and Social Committee. 
 
III. POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
1) INTRODUCCIÓN  
En el párrafo 3 se indica que hacen falta licencias de  importación para los productos que están sujetos 
a restricciones cuantitativas, contingentes arancelarios o medidas de salvaguardia, o bien con fines de 
control y vigilancia de las importaciones.   
 
Pregunta 2 
Al respecto, es de interés del Ecuador conocer en detalle qué acciones han realizado o prevén 
desarrollar a futuro las CE para aplicar los regíme nes de importación con miras a evitar distorsiones al 
comercio que puedan derivarse de una aplicación im propia de dicho mecanismo, así como garantizar 
que los procedimientos de los trámites de licencias se apliquen de manera neutral y se administran de 
forma justa y equitativa, de acuerdo con los estab lecido en los artículos 2 y 3 del Acuerdo sobre 
Procedimientos para el Trámite  de Licencias de importación. 
 
Respuesta
 
The EC's licensing regime is subject to an elabor ate set of rules and procedures. For ease of 
reference, please refer to Sections 5-6-7 of the EC annual notification under Article 7.3 
(G/LIC/N/3/EEC/10). The application and legality of these are carefully  scrutinized by the European 
Court of Justice. In addition, Council Regulation 3285/1994 on the common rules for imports, in its preamble, refers specifically to meeting WTO obli gations in the area of imposing surveillance. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 320  
 
 2) MEDIDAS QUE AFECTAN DIRECTAMENTE A LAS IMPORTACIONES 
i) Procedimientos aduaneros  Pregunta 3 
En el párrafo 11 se indica que la aplicación unifo rme por los Estados miembros de las CE de 
procedimientos aduaneros comunes ha constituido un problema, al ser limitada la interoperabilidad 
entre los sistemas.   Adicionalmente, el mismo párrafo señala que la administración por parte de los Estados miembros de varias leyes y reglamentos aduaneros de las CE, especialmente en la esfera de la 
valoración y la clasificación, ha planteado preocupaci ones, lo que ha sido objeto de una diferencia en 
la OMC. 
 
¿Cuáles son los problemas que se han registrado en la la aplicación uniforme por los Estados 
miembros de las CE de proced imientos aduaneros comunes? 
 
Respuesta
 
With reference to the dispute settlement case DS  315 "EC Selected customs matters" the EC would 
like to clearly underline that the WTO adjudicating body including the Appellate Body found no systemic fault with the EC's administration of its customs laws and regulations in all areas including 
inter alia customs classification,   customs valuation and customs procedures. Therefore the EC does 
not understand the Secretariat worries and in any even t recall that the Appellate Body has already 
spoken on such matters. 
 
Pregunta 4 
¿Cules son las preocupaciones que han planteado vari os Estados miembros sobre la administración de 
varias leyes y reglamentos aduaneros?  Respuesta
 
The management  of the legislation  for customs pr ocedures and customs controls in the EU are the 
same throughout its customs territory, as they are laid down in the Community  Customs Code and its 
implementing provisions. Concerns have more to do with the the local practices and IT procedures. 
The EU is constantly working on alinging even  further local practices and IT procedures. 
En el párrafo 12 se hace referencia a tres deb ilidades del sistema de la Información arancelaria 
vinculante: i) dificultad para que el Comité de l Código Aduanero, a cuya resolución se someten las 
cuestiones de clasificación entre los diferentes Es tados miembros, adopte medidas que aseguren la 
aplicación uniforme de la nomenclatura en los plazos previstos por la legislación;  ii) ausencia de 
plazos legales específicos para concluir consultas con otros Estados miembros en relación con IAV 
divergentes;  y iii) retrasos en la actualización de la base de datos 
 
Pregunta 5 
¿Cuáles son las medidas que están tomando pa ra superar las debilidades antes anotadas? 
 
Respuesta  
As was stated clearly in the special report of the European Court of Auditors, there are no systemic 
problems attached to the BTI system. 
 With regard to the point (i) the Commission has introduced a template for the submission of tariff classification queries.  This has resu lted in more streamlined submissions and the 
availability of all relevant information at the start of discussions, ensuring that delegations 
have all the necessary details to enable th e discussions to proceed more rapidly. 
 (ii)  The Commission constantly impresses on th e administrations of the Member States the 
importance of bilateral consultation between th em and the necessity for timely responses to  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 321 
 
 
 such queries.  Although not currently provided for in the legislation, it is  intended to regulate 
such bilateral contacts in the implementing provisions to the Modernised Customs Code. 
 (iii)  In the majority of cases Member States administrations update the database regularly.  
In the specific instance referred  to by the auditors there was a technical problem between 
system to system exchanges which was resolved as soon as possible. 
 iii) Otras cargas a) Impuesto sobre el valor añadido (IVA)  
De acuerdo al párrafo 22, la base del IVA está en gran parte armonizada en todo el ámbito de las CE, 
pero los tipos, exenciones y procedimientos  difieren entre los Estados miembros.  
 
Pregunta 6 
¿Existe la intención por parte de las CE de arm onizar los tipos exenciones y procedimientos del IVA 
entre los Estados Miembros? 
 
Respuesta
 
The move towards a higher level of harmonization of  VAT rates is not on the political EU agenda at 
the current point in time.  
b) Impuestos especiales de consumo  
En los párrafos 25, 26 y 27 se hace referencia a que todos los miembros de las CE aplican impuestos 
especiales de consumo principalmente a las bebid as alcohólicas, los productos de tabaco y los 
productos relacionados con la energía (por ejemplo, el  petróleo y la gasolina, la electricidad, el gas 
natural, el carbón y el coque) y se menciona que la base, los tipos y las estructuras del impuesto 
especial de consumo que grava el alcohol y las be bidas alcohólicas están fijadas en la Directiva 
98/83/CEE, así como que la Directiva 92/84/CEE del Consejo fija los tipos mínimos del impuesto especial de consumo aplicado al alcohol y las bebidas alcohólicas.  
Pregunta 7 
Es de interés del Ecuador conocer si los criterios  enunciados en dichas Directivas se aplican tanto a 
los productos nacionales, es decir, a productos de los Estados miembros de las CE, como a los productos importados.   
Respuesta
 
National as well as imported pr oducts are equally treated.  
 
vi) Prohibiciones, restricciones y licencias de importación 
b) Restricciones cuantitativas y licencias 
 
En el párrafo 47 se indica que las CE mantienen contingentes arancelarios con respecto al 4,8 por 
ciento de las líneas arancelarias, en su mayoría de  productos agropecuarios. De igual manera, en el 
párrafo 126 (ayudas a la agricultura y a la p esca) se menciona que las CE aplican ayudas y 
subvenciones agrícolas.  
Pregunta 8 
Es de interés del Ecuador conocer  de manera específica cuáles son las consideraciones que las CE 
utilizan para la aplicación de dichas prohibicion es y restricciones cuantitativas y a qué subpartidas se 
aplican los mismos.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 322  
 
 Respuesta
 
It is true that the EC has tariff quotas. Ho wever, these are not quantitative prohibitions and 
restrictions as Ecuador refers to in the question. To the contrary, tariff quo tas provide, in fact, 
additional market openings which would not be possible under the normal duty.  
Pregunta 9 ¿Qué acciones las CE están realizando o prevén desarrollar a futuro para la eliminación de estos 
regímenes discriminatorios, de conformidad con lo establecido en el artículo XVI, Sección B, 
numerales 3 y 4 del GATT de 1994?  Respuesta
 
In using export refunds, the EC respects its sc heduled commitments. Theref ore, these measures are 
not WTO inconsistent. The EC is committed to the Doha Development Agenda negotiations which aim 
at further liberalising trade, substantially cutting trade distorting agricultural support and 
eliminating trade distorting ex port competition practices. The EC  stands by its commitment to 
eliminate export subsidies by 2013 on condition of the successful completion of the DDA.  
vii) Medidas comerciales especiales 
a) Medidas antidumping  
En el párrafo 53 se señala que un Comité Consu ltivo examina las reclamaciones presentadas para la 
aplicación de una medida antidumping y, si existen pruebas suficientes, la Comisión inicia una 
investigación en un plazo de 45 días.  
Pregunta 10 
¿Cuál es el procedimiento a través del cual el Comité Consultivo determina si existen pruebas suficientes par iniciar una investigación? 
 
Respuesta
 
The Commission, as the investigating authority  decides on the initiation of an anti-dumping 
investigation within 45 days from the lodging of a complaint. Before initiation, Member States are 
consulted in an Advisory Committee. The role of this  committee, however, is strictly consultative. The 
final decision whether an investigation should be opened lies with the Commission.  
viii) Reglamentos técnicos y otras prescripciones técnicas  
a) Obstáculos técnicos al comercio (OTC) 
 En el párrafo 63 se indica que los reglamentos técnic os, normas y procedimientos de evaluación de la 
conformidad de las CE no han sido armonizados en todos los sectores.    
Pregunta 11 
¿En qué sectores no se han armonizado los reglamentos técnicos, normas y procedimientos de 
evaluación? 
 
Respuesta
 
Technical rules:  
The new Regulation No 764/200869 (hereinafter: the "Mutual Recognition Regulation") aims inter alia  
to clarify which product categories the principle of  mutual recognition applies to by creating a non-
exhaustive list of products which are not s ubject to EC harmonisation legislation  
                                                      
 69 Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 laying 
down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in 
another Member State and repealing Decision No 3052/95/EC, JO L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 21.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 323 
 
 
 The Commission is in the process of drawing up this non-exhaustive list of products, which will be 
accessible on the Europa website70 from 13 May 2009. 
 
Según el párrafo 66, los Estados miembros no pued en restringir la comercialización de productos con 
la marca "CE" a menos que existan pruebas de falta de conformidad del producto.   
 
Pregunta 12 
¿Cuál es el procedimiento a través del cual se estab lece la falta de conformi dad de los productos con 
la marca "CE"?    Respuesta
 
Where the market surveillance authorities of one  Member State have taken action pursuant to an 
accident verified following the use of a specific good,  or where they have sufficient reason to believe 
that a product presents a risk to the health or safety of persons or to other aspects of public interest 
protection covered by this, they shall carry out an evaluation in relation to the product concerned 
covering all the requirements laid down in the Directi ve(s) covering that given product. The relevant 
economic operators shall cooperate as necessa ry with the market surveillance authorities.  
 Where, in the course of that evaluation, the market surveillance authorities find that the product does 
not comply with the requirements laid down in th e concerned Directive(s), they shall without delay 
require the relevant economic operator to take a ll appropriate corrective action to bring the product 
into compliance with those require ments, to withdraw the product from the market, or to recall it 
within a reasonable period, commensurate with th e nature of the risk, as they may prescribe. 
 The market surveillance authorities shall inform the re levant conformity assessment body accordingly. 
 
Where the market surveillance authorities consider that noncompliance is not restricted to their 
national territory, they shall inform the Commission and the other Member States of the results of the 
evaluation and of the actions which they have required the economic operator to take. 
 The economic operator shall ensure that all appropriate  corrective action is taken in respect of all the 
products concerned that it has made ava ilable on the market throughout the Community. 
 Where the relevant economic operator does not take adequate corrective action within the period 
referred to in the concerned Directive(s), the ma rket surveillance authorities shall take all appropriate 
provisional measures to prohibit or restrict th e product's being made available on their national 
market, to withdraw the product from that market or to recall it. They shall inform the Commission  
and the other Member States, without delay, of those measures. The information referred to above shall include all available details, in particular the data necessary 
for the identification of the noncompliant product, the origin of the product, the nature of the 
noncompliance alleged and the risk involved, the nature and duration of the national measures taken and the arguments put forward by the relevant economic operator. In particular, the market 
surveillance authorities shall indicate wheth er the non-compliance is due to either: 
 (a) failure of the product to meet requirements relating to the health or safety of persons 
 or to other aspects of public interest protection laid down in concerned Directive(s); or 
 (b  shortcomings in the harmonised standar ds conferring a presumption of conformity. 
 
Member States other than the Member State initiati ng the procedure shall without delay inform the 
Commission and the other Member States of any meas ures adopted and of any additional information 
                                                     
 
70 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/r egulation/goods/mutrec_en.htm. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 324  
 
 at their disposal relating to th e non-compliance of the product concerned, and, in the event of 
disagreement with the notified national measure, of their objections.  
Where, within a period of time specified in the concerned Directive from the receipt of the 
information, no objection has been raised by eith er a Member State or the Commission in respect of a 
provisional measure taken by a Member State,  that measure shall be deemed justified. 
 
Member States shall ensure that appropriate restri ctive measures are taken in respect of the product 
concerned, such as withdrawal of the product from their market, without delay. 
 Where, on completion of the procedure set out above, objections are raised against a measure taken 
by a Member State, or where the Commission considers a national measure to be contrary to 
Community legislation, the Commission shall withou t delay enter into consultation with the Member 
States and the relevant economic operator or opera tors and shall evaluate the national measure. On 
the basis of the results of that evaluation, the Commission shall decide whether the national measure 
is justified or not.   
The Commission shall address its decision to all Me mber States and shall immediately communicate it 
to them and the relevant economic operator or operators.  
If the national measure is consid ered justified, all Member States s hall take the measures necessary to 
ensure that the non-compliant product is wit hdrawn from their market, and shall inform the 
Commission accordingly. If the national measure is considered unjustified, the Member State 
concerned shall withdraw the measure.  
Pregunta 13 
De acuerdo al párrafo 68, cada Estado miembro ha de designar un único organismo nacional de 
acreditación, que deberá reconocer la  equivalencia de los servicios de otros organismos nacionales de 
acreditación que hayan superado un examen por homólogos.  ¿En qué consiste el examen entre homólogos?  Respuesta
 
According to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) 765/2008  of the European Parliament and of the Council 
of 9 July 2008 setting out the requirements for a ccreditation and market surveillance relating to the 
marketing of products71, the European co-operation for accreditation (EA) - the body recognised as 
providing the support infrastructure to the new EC  accreditation framework - will be responsible for 
operating a sound, robust, transparent and reliable peer evaluation whereby the proper control of the 
competence and functioning of the national accredita tion bodies is exerted and the conformity to the 
new legal requirements that apply to accreditati on bodies is verified. The peer evaluation should in 
particular focus on structural, human resou rce and process requirements, confidentiality and 
complaints.  
 
Through the peer evaluation mechanism, EA contributes to the equivalence of the quality of the national accreditation bodies’ ser vices and therefore to the mutual acceptance of conformity 
certificates issued by accredited c onformity assessment bodies througho ut the EU and in the rest of 
the world. The objective of the peer evaluation is to establish c onfidence concerning the accreditation 
bodies (equivalence among all signatories) and the accredited conformity assessment bodies (the 
outcomes of their conformity assessm ent activities are equally reliable). 
 
                                                     
 
71 OJEU L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 325 
 
 
 Pregunta 14 
En el párrafo 69 se señala que los organismos de evaluación de la conformidad de terceros países 
pueden tomar parte en las actividades de evaluación de la conformidad de las CE mediante acuerdos 
de reconocimiento mutuo.   
¿Cuál es el procedimiento para el establecimi ento de acuerdos de reconocimiento mutuo entre 
organismos de evaluación de conformidad?    
Respuesta
 
There is no established procedure for the ins titution of a Mutual Recognition Agreement at 
Government level. 
 Concerning Mutual Recognition Agreements between  Conformity Assessment Bodies, these are 
agreements established under private law and bey ond the scope and the control of the European 
Commission. 
 
Pregunta 15 
En el párrafo se 72 indica que varios Miembros han planteado preocupaciones en el Comité OTC 
respecto a reglamentos técnicos mantenidos o prop uestos por las CE o sus Estados miembros que 
crean o podrían crear obstáculos innecesarios al come rcio de sustancias y preparados químicos, 
productos vitivinícolas, juguetes, productos deriva dos de las focas, productos ecológicos, productos 
que utilizan energía, encendedores, aparatos el éctricos y electrónicos, y cables eléctricos. 
 ¿Podría proporcionar mayor información sobre la  normativa comunitaria para el comercio de 
productos ecológicos?  Respuesta
 
Please see reply to question 16. Please find further information at:  http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/organic/home_en 
 
Pregunta 16 
¿Qué medidas han tomado las CE respecto de las preocupaciones planteadas por varios Miembros en 
el Comité OTC en cuando a los obstáculos que podrían establecer ciertos reglamen tos técnicos para el 
comercio de productos orgánicos?  
Respuesta
 
The EC has had legislation in place to facilitate the import of organic products since 1991. As a 
result, the EC is importing significant volumes of  organic products from all over the world.  
 The EC has a two-tier system for organic imports: th e products have to originate in a third country 
that is recognised by the EC for having equivalent  organic production rules and control systems, or, 
an EC Member state can give an authorisation to import a specific amount of organic goods from 
another third country. 
 Since 1 January 2009, a new regulatory framework is  in place, which maintains the list of third 
countries authorized to export organic products to the EC. Moreover, it fore sees to phase out the 
authorisations given by EC Member States and to rep lace this system with a list of control bodies 
recognised as equivalent for their contro l activities in certain third countries.  
 In the TBT Committee of 18-19 March 2008, the EC ha s indicated that this new regulatory framework 
is a voluntary scheme, and that its provisions onl y need to be fulfilled if a producer wants to sell its 
products labelled as "organic" in the EC and at le ast 95 percent of the ingredients of the product are WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 326  
 
 organic. Furthermore, non-organic products will be en titled to indicate on the label that they contain 
some organic ingredients.  Moreover, as of July 2010, pre-packaged food pr oducts that use the Community organic logo and 
contain raw materials from non-EC countries will have to carry the "EU/non-EU agriculture" 
statement on the label. Some WTO Members have expressed concerns that this requirement may 
influence the choice of consumers. The EC has analysed these concerns, and has also conducted 
various bilateral discussions on the subject. As a res ult, it has concluded that there is no evidence to 
support the argument that the labelling requirements could negatively affect non-EC countries' sales 
of organic raw materials to the EC.  
 
Pregunta 17 
De acuerdo al párrafo 75, las CE han procurado informar a los operadores económicos de todo el 
mundo sobre los procesos y obligaciones establecidos en  el régimen para el registro, evaluación, 
autorización y restricción de sustancias y preparados químicos (REACH). 
 
¿Podría proporcionar información adicional sobre l as acciones concretas que fueron desplegadas por 
las CE para informar a los operadores económicos  los procesos y obligaciones establecidos REACH. 
 
Respuesta
 
The EC has made a vast effort to make available free of charge to any operator worldwide guidance, 
tools and other materials to better understand REACH; this  information is available at the website of 
the European Chemicals Agency.  In addition, REACH helpdesk have been set up to respond specific 
queries about REACH.  Furthermore, the EC has also provided (and continues to provide) technical 
assistance on REACH to developing countries upon request.    
 
Pregunta 18 
En el párrafo 77 se hace referencia a que los Mi embros de la OMC plantearon 12 preocupaciones 
sobre medidas adoptadas en las CE, como el REACH, la clasificación de sustancias peligrosas 
(níquel), los nuevos alimentos y los cosméticos. Adicionalmente, el Ecua dor considera que otra 
prescripción técnica que causa preocupación es el Re glamento CE 1005/2008, mediante el cual se 
pretende establecer un sistema comunitario para prev enir, desalentar y eliminar la pesca ilegal, pero 
contiene ciertos componentes que podrían ser consider ados como obstáculos al comercio, tales como 
la obligatoriedad de cumplimiento de varias condici ones a fin de exportar pescado al mercado de las 
CE, sin tomar en cuenta varios criterios ya establecidos sobre este tema en la FAO/OMC.  El Ecuador requiere conocer cuáles son los criterios técnicos aplicados por las CE para elaborar y 
aplicar los reglamentos mencionados en ese párrafo  -particularmente el Reglamento CE 1005/2008 y 
el reglamento de Novel Foods-, sin que se consid eren y/o busquen crear obs táculos innecesarios al 
comercio internacional, de conformidad con el artíc ulo 2.2 del Acuerdo sobre Obstáculos Técnicos al 
Comercio.  
Respuesta
 
The EC Regulation No. 1005/2008 is justified as a means to achieve a legitimate purpose, which is the 
conservation of the fish stocks by combating IUU fishing. The implementation of its provisions, including its catch certificate, will not represent a trade barrier; on the contrary, its purpose will be 
to facilitate legal trade and prevent it from facing unfair competition from illegal products. The EU 
will apply trade measures where multilateral and  regional cooperation have failed to provide 
sufficient means to combat IUU fishing. The EC  has been (and still is) proactive in seeking 
multilateral, regional and bilateral solutions to IUU fishing activities for the last decade (e.g. in FAO, 
RFMOs, Fisheries Partnership Agreements).    WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 327 
 
 
 Furthermore, the new measure is directly inspired from measures already adopted, mainly at regional 
level, which have proved to be efficient to combat  IUU fishing and to facilitate the legal trade with 
fishery products. Finally, the IUU Regulation is based on objective criteria, as the EC is not imposing 
its own standards. The Regulation refers to laws and regulations  adopted by third countries, as well 
as international conservation and management measures. 
 
The Novel Food Regulation (Regulation (EC) No. 258/97) was developed to create uniform marketing 
conditions, avoiding differences be tween national laws that could hinder the free movement of 
foodstuffs in the EC.  Article 3 of this regulati on provides that foods and food ingredients falling 
within its scope must not present a danger or mislead the consumer. They also must be clearly defined 
so that clear directions to consumers can be given  if these are requested. When authorizing the selling 
of whatever foodstuff, food control authorities must be  sure that its normal consumption would not be 
disadvantageous for the consumer, either due to  the composition of the food itself or because 
sufficient cultural knowledge is required on how to handle it. The EC has introduced this legislation 
with the legitimate objectives of ensuring the protection of human health and the prevention of 
deceptive practices, and is of the opinion that the regulation on Novel Food is not more trade 
restrictive than necessary to fulfill these legitimate objectives. 
 
b) Cuestiones sanitarias y fitosanitarias 
 
En el párrafo 81 se señala que por lo general, los alimentos elaborados que no sean de origen animal 
pueden importarse sin certificado sanitario. 
 
Pregunta 19 
¿Cuáles son los alimentos elaborados que no sean de origen animal que para su importación requieren 
de un certificado sanitario? 
 
Respuesta  
EU legislation on processed foodstuffs of non animal or igin is currently not fully harmonized. When a 
processed foodstuff does not contain any product of animal origin, there is currently no need for a 
sanitary health certificate. The Commission is worki ng towards the harmonization of the legislation 
for these products. 
 En el párrafo 84 se indica que el 1º de septiembre de 2008 entró en vigor un nuevo sistema de límites 
máximos de residuos de plaguicidas (LMR) en alimentos, que consolida las listas nacionales 
divergentes de LMR y armoniza los LMR a nivel co munitario. Dicho reglamento abarca todos los 
productos agrícolas, incluidos los productos de orig en animal y los productos elaborados, destinados 
al consumo humano o a la alimentación animal; se es pecifican LMR para unos 500 plaguicidas;  a los 
(otros) plaguicidas no especificados se les aplica por defecto un LMR de 0,01 mg/kg.     
Pregunta 20 
Es de particular interés para el Ecuador conocer qué criterios técnic os científicos han aplicado las CE 
–de acuerdo con el artículo 2.2 del Acuerdo MSF- pa ra decidir los plaguicidas que deben o no formar 
parte de este reglamento, toda v ez que varios de los plaguicidas utilizados en la producción de 
productos ecuatorianos, tales como el cacao, utilizan plaguicidas no contemplados en dicha normativa, lo que ha provocado el rechazo de varios cargamentos de productos ecuatorianos. 
 
Respuesta
 
The harmonization has represented a big advance in terms of trade because it has clarified and 
simplified the MRL situation at EU level. Therefore,  there is not any more "national MRLs". For all 
those substances non-specified, the EC does not ha ve enough information, especially concerning the 
toxicological endpoints and residue trials. Therefore,  the EC is not able to set any MRLs different 
from the limit of determination (LOD) in order to  avoid any risk for potential European consumers. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 328  
 
 The EC will set MRLs for third countries (as im port tolerances) if it is requested by them in 
accordance with the articles 6 and 7 to Regulation 396/2005. 
 
Según el párrafo 86, las importaciones de los vegetales y productos vegetales específicos (por ejemplo, frutas y legumbres y hortalizas frescas) deben acompañarse de un certificado fitosanitario 
emitido por la organización nacional de pr otección fitosanitaria del país exportador. 
 
Pregunta 21 
¿Cuáles son los requisitos con los que el certifi cado fitosanitario emitido por la organización nacional 
de protección fitosanitaria del país exportador de be cumplir para ser considerado como válido? 
 
Respuesta
 
Depending on the type and the botanic species of the commodity to be imported, Annex V, Part B, of 
Council Directive 2000/29/EC, provides for the pl ants and plant products which should undergo plant 
health inspection at the country of origin or the c onsignor country, before being permitted to enter the 
Community. 
Again depending on the type and the botanic species of the plants and plant products to be imported, 
they should fulfil the one or more of the special requirements which are laid down in the second 
column of the points 1.1 to 54 in Annex IV, Part A, Section I. The later should be referred to the 
phytosanitary certificate of the exporting third country. In addition the Commission has adopted Decisions for emergency provisional measures for certain 
commodities of plants and plant products for which specific requirements should be fulfilled.  
 
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES 
1) INTRODUCCIÓN Frutas y legumbres y hortalizas 
 
En el párrafo 52 se señala que el régimen de ayuda  interna para el banano fue reformado con efecto a 
partir del 1º de enero de 2007, por lo que la ayuda otorgada a los productores en las regiones 
ultraperiféricas es concedida por los Estados miembros a través del régimen del Programa de opciones específicas por la lejanía y la insularidad, POSEI. En  el pie de página 60, relacionado con este párrafo, 
se indica que el programa POSEI se ha convertido en el principal instrumento reglamentario para el 
banano en las regiones ultraperiféricas, y propor ciona a los Estados mi embros afectados la 
flexibilidad necesaria para  apoyar a los productores de banano co n fondos adicionales por valor de 
278,8 millones de euros.     
Pregunta 22 
¿Cuáles fueron las razones que impulsaron a las CE a reformar el régimen de ayuda interna para el 
banano y adoptar el POSEI?  
Respuesta
 
The EC would like to point to three reasons: 
1. Ensure a fair standard of living of the agri cultural community in regions where bananas are 
produced, while stabilizing public expenditure; 
 2. Align the regime on the main principles of the reformed common market organisations: 
sustainability, competitiveness, market-orientation of producers;  
3. Take adequately into account the pa rticularities of the outermost regions. 
 
Pregunta 23 
¿Las ayudas internas para el banano han sido notificadas a la Secretaría de la OMC? 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 329 
 
 
 Respuesta  
Domestic support, including domestic support fo r bananas, has been notified up to and including the 
2005/2006 marketing year. Further notifications are under preparation. 
 
Pregunta 24 
¿Podría proporcionar mayor información acerca de l as acciones concretas de ayuda que contempla el 
POSEI?  
Respuesta
 
The European support for agriculture in the Outerm ost Region, other than Rural Development, is 
managed through the specific POSEI programmes. Th ese programmes are issued and implemented by 
the respective Member States with the approval and the monitoring of the European Commission and 
within the budgetary ceilings fixed by Community legislation.  Concerning bananas, the Member States have designed  measures aimed at supporting the revenues of 
the producers of the banana producing regions. In th e Canary Islands and in the French Overseas 
Departments of Guadeloupe and Martinique (French Antilles), the regions which account by far for 
the highest amount of banana production in Europe, the aid is distributed within a fixed budgetary ceiling. The Spanish authorities have decided to pay a part of their financial allocation to producers 
who respect certain environmental conditions. 
 
Pregunta 25 
¿Podría profundizar en cuanto a la "flexibilidad necesaria" que el POSEI proporciona a los miembros 
afectados?  
Repuesta
 
Within the legal provisions and the budgetary ceilings  established by Community legislation for the 
POSEI programmes, the Member States can decide how  to support the variou s agricultural sectors of 
their outermost regions and, consequently, how to allocate the available financial means. However, 
the Commission maintains control o ver the decisions of the Member States since it must ensures the 
compliance of the proposed action with Community legislation.  
The mentioned flexibility refers al so to the fact that Member State can proceed with certain 
modifications of their programmes - limited however by Community law - without prior approval of 
the Commission. 
 
COSTA RICA
 
 
III. POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES POR MEDIDAS 
1)  INTRODUCCIÓN 
 
Pregunta 1 
¿Cuáles son las tasas de los impuestos sobre el  alcohol y las bebidas alcohólicas? (Página 34, 
párrafo 2)  
 
Respuesta  
The categories of product liable to alcohol excise dut ies are laid down in Directive 92/83/EEC. These 
are Beer, Wine, Fermented Beverages other than Wi ne and Beer, Intermediate Product (for example 
'Port' and 'Sherry' and Ethyl Alcohol (i.e. spirits  drinks). The Directive also includes special 
provisions on reduced rates for small breweries and distilleries, for products with low levels of 
alcohol, and products of spec ific geographical regions.  Council Directive 92/84/EEC sets the 
minimum excise duty rates on alcohol and alcoholic beverages. The methods by which duty is charged 
differ for each category. The cu rrent minimum rates which Member St ates must comply with are the WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 330  
 
 following: Beer - 1.87 Euros per hectolitre/degree of alcohol or alternatively 0.748 hectolitre/degree 
Plato; Intermediate Product 45 Euros per hectolitre of product (i.e. volume); Ethyl alcohol 550 Euros per hectolitre of pure alcohol; For Wine and Ferm ented Beverages the minimum rate is zero. The 
same rate of duty is always charged on similar pr oducts, whether they are prod uced or imported into 
the EU. 
 
Pregunta 2  
¿Para cuáles productos agrícolas se exigen autorizaciones de exportación? (Página 34, párrafo 4) 
 
Respuesta
 
In the EU legislation there is neither restriction nor limitation on exports of agricultural products. 
According to the EU legislation, in order to m onitor the export flows, for certain products in cereals / 
rice and sugar sectors, exports are subject to presen tation of an export licence which is issued by 
competent authorities in the Member States without restriction, but subject to lodging a security to 
guarantee the use of the licence and the reliability of the system. In the other sectors, exports are not 
subject to the presentation of an export licence. 
 In cases where an export refund is applicable and granted , the export is subject to the presentation of 
an export licence in order to manage the regime of export refunds. A security has to be lodged to 
guarantee the reliability of the system.  
2) MEDIDAS QUE AFECTAN DIRECTAMENTE A LAS IMPORTACIONES 
viii) Reglamentos técnicos y otros requisitos técnicos (a)  Obstáculos Técnicos al Comercio (OTC) 
 Pregunta 3  
De acuerdo a lo expresado por las Comunidades Eu ropeas, el principio de reconocimiento mutuo 
aplicado en el mercado interior tiene excepciones que están incorporadas en el artículo 30 del Tratado Constitutivo de la CE, pero al ser dichas excep ciones coincidentes con los objetivos legítimos 
establecidos en el Acuerdo sobre Obstáculos Técnicos  al Comercio de la OMC, ¿no hay tendencia a 
que se incrementen los casos de excepción a dic ho principio? ¿Existe algún listado de productos en 
los que la libre movilidad de un determinado producto no aplica entr e dos o más países? (Página 56, 
párrafo 63). 
 
Respuesta
 
From 13 May 2009 and according to Regulation No 764/200872(hereinafter: the "Mutual Recognition 
Regulation" or "the Regulation") the effective application of the mutual recognition principle will be 
further enhanced. In fact, pursuant to the Regulation,  if a Member State intends to deny the access to 
its market to a product lawfully marketed in anot her Member State based on one of the grounds of 
public interest set out in Article 30 of the Treaty, it will have to justify its pos ition with technical or 
scientific evidences.  Therefore, it should be noted that Article 30 of the Treaty, which contains the exception to the general 
rule (Article 28), is restrictively applied. Only on a case by case basis and when a Member State sets 
out supporting scientific or technical evidence and fo llow the procedural requirements established in 
Articles 4 to 6 of the Regulation, the exceptions should apply.   
                                                     
 
 72 Regulation (EC) No. 764/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 laying 
down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in 
another Member State and repealing Decision No. 3052/95/EC, JO L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 21.  
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 331 
 
 
 There is no list of products which have been banned in  one or some Member States. The reason is that 
the general rule is the free movement of goods w ithin the European Union. In the harmonised area 
this freedom is ensured by EC secondary legislati on (regulations, directives, decisions) while in the 
non-harmonised area the application of the mutual  recognition principle ensures that products can 
move freely across the bord ers of the Member States. 
 
Pregunta 4  
En el caso de las directivas europeas que tienen lig amen con normas voluntarias, en el sentido que si 
un producto cumple con la norma se presume que cu mple la directiva establecida, ¿qué sucede si 
dicha directiva tiene como base una norma ISO, y un tercer país cumple la misma norma ISO si bien 
no es la norma europea del CEN? ¿Se reconoce la mi sma presunción de conformi dad con la directiva? 
(Página 56, párrafo 64) 
 
Respuesta  
New Approach legislation define essential public interest  requirements in the field of health, safety, 
environmental protection, etc. whilst European Stan dards developed in support of such legislation 
harmonise technical specifications, the compliance w ith which provides a presumption of conformity 
with the requirements of the relevant legislation.  EC harmonising legislation solely makes reference 
to European Standards. These Eur opean Standards may be identical to ISO or IEC international 
standards. If they are, compliance with the interna tional standard means de facto compliance with the 
European Standard. However, the European Standar d remains the only valid legal reference to 
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of EC legislation.  
 Pregunta 5  
En materia de acreditación, siendo la Comuni dad Europea miembro de ILAC (International 
Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation), ¿reconoce como válidas las certificaciones emitidas por 
organismos de certificación que hayan sido acredita dos por organismos de acreditación que formen 
parte del Acuerdo de Reconocimient o Multilateral en el marco de IL AC? ¿Requiere el producto que 
se encuentre en estas condiciones ser evaluado nuev amente en la Comunidad Europea cuando se 
exige certificación de tercera parte? ¿Deben estar los organismos europeos de evaluación de la 
conformidad llamados "organismos notificados", de bidamente acreditados en la Comunidad Europea? 
(Página 57, párrafo 68). 
 
Respuesta
 
The EC relies to a substantial extent on Supplier's Decl aration of Conformity for access to its market, 
with the use of compulsory third-party conform ity assessment being limited to those product sectors 
where the nature of the risks invo lved so requires. The EC approach to conformity assessment 
therefore significantly reduces the obligation for ec onomic operators to have recourse to conformity 
assessment bodies (CABs) for the verification of conformity of their products. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) 765/2008 of the Euro pean Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 
setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of 
products
73, where EC product legislation requires third-par ty conformity assessment, accreditation is 
the preferred method of determining that a confor mity assessment body (CAB) meets the applicable 
requirements to carry out a specific c onformity assessment activity.   
 Only CABs established under the national law of an EU Member State are eligible for becoming 
"notified bodies" for the purposes of the relevant  EC "New Approach" pr oduct legislation.  
 
Under Regulation 765/2008, each Member State must appoint a single national accreditation body, 
unless it considers that it is not economically meani ngful or sustainable, in which case it may have 
recourse to the national accreditation body of an other Member State. National accreditation bodies 
                                                     
 
73 OJEU L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 332  
 
 of the EU Member States should be members  of the European Co-operation for Accreditation (EA), 
which is the body recognised as providing the sup port infrastructure to the new EC accreditation 
framework.   Where a CAB requests accreditation, as a general ru le it should do so with the national accreditation 
body of the Member State in which it is establis hed. Article 7 of Regulation 765/2008 defines a 
number of exceptions to this principle where accred itation may be requested to an accreditation body 
of a Member State other than the Member State in which the CAB is established.  Accreditation by an accreditation body outside the European Economic Area (EEA) does not confer 
any specific additional rights per se regarding the acceptance of a CAB as a notified body under EC 
product legislation.   In should nevertheless be observed that, in addition to the possibilities offered by the MRAs which the 
EC has concluded with a number of countries, there are several possi bilities for third-country CABs 
to participate in the conformity assessment ac tivities under applicable EC product legislation. 
 First
, third-country CAB's subsidiaries established in an EU Member State are eligible for 
designation as a Notified Body for the purpose of the EC  "New Approach" product legislation. In this 
case if accreditation is used by the notifying auth ority of the Member State in which the CAB in 
question is established to back up the designation d ecision, accreditation should be requested with the 
national accreditation body of that Member State. Only in certain cases provided for in Article 7 of 
Regulation 765/2008, accreditation may be requested with a national accreditation body of a Member 
State other than the Member State in which the CAB is established.  Second
, designated Notified Bodies can subcontract specific tasks connected with conformity 
assessment under private contractual  agreements. This includes the po ssibility of subcontracting to 
third-country CABs and testing labor atories. Under these arrangements,  Notified Bodies must ensure 
that the subcontractor or subsidiary meets the t echnical competence requirem ents relating to Notified 
Bodies and retain full responsibility for the tasks perfor med by subcontractors or subsidiaries. Third-
country CABs and testing laboratories holding accreditation certificates under IAF or ILAC will generally be presumed to fulfil those technical competence requirements and therefore be able to 
enter into subcontracting arrangements with EC Notified Bodies.   
Third
, where international private sect oral voluntary arrangements for the recognition of test results 
supported by ILAC/IAF accreditation are in place, su ch as the IECEE CB scheme on the safety of 
electrical equipment or the IECEx scheme on the safety  of equipment used in explosive atmospheres, 
such arrangements are widely used by Europe an CABs, in relation to both the voluntary or 
mandatory third-party certification, and thus pr ovide a great potential for trade facilitation. 
 Medidas Sanitarias y Fitosanitarias (MSF) 
 
Pregunta 6  
¿Qué tipo de medidas de emergencia puede adoptar la Comisión en materia de MSF? ¿Qué grado de 
fundamento científico en cuanto al riesgo del pr oducto, debe existir para  que la Comisión pueda 
emitir una MSF de emergencia? (Página 60, párrafo 78).  
Respuesta
 
The EC can temporary take emergency measures  by "Comitology procedure" through Commission 
Decisions published in the Official Journal of the EU. Periodic reviews must take place in order to 
assess whether the measures should be  maintained, improved or dele ted, based on the results from 
checks carried out on the products listed in the  D ecision. The Article 53 of the Reg. 178/2008 lays 
down that "As soon as possible, and at most within 10 working days, the measures taken shall be  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 333 
 
 
 confirmed, amended, revoked or extended [...], and the reasons for the Commission's decision shall 
be made public without delay".  
 
Pregunta 7 
¿Qué son medidas precautorias en el contexto del párrafo 80, página 61? (Página 61, párrafo 80) 
 Respuesta
 
The EC must strive to reduce the risk to a negligible level in case of potential threats to human health. 
But zero risk cannot be achieved. So even when dea ling with high priority threats where a negligible 
level of risk is sought, the EC must analyse th e cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness of possible 
interventions to ensure best use of limited resources, both in terms of EU funding and cost to 
producers. Where a potentially serious threat to health  is identified, but there is scientific uncertainty 
about its likelihood of occurring, proportionate pr ovisional measures should be taken to ensure a 
high level of health protection pending further scien tific information clarifying the extent of the risk.  
 
Pregunta 8 ¿Cuál es la posición de las Comunidades Europ eas en relación con la preocupación de Ecuador 
manifestada en el Comité de MSF de la OMC, en  relación con el nivel de residuo máximo establecido 
para Ethephon en piña? (Página 62, párrafo 84)  
Respuesta
 
In order to face an intake concern because of the current MRL of "ethephon" in pineapples, the EC is 
going to set a temporary MRL of 0.5 mg/kg in pineapp les, as it has already been notified to the trade 
partners through the SPS procedure (i.e. documen t G/SPS/N/EEC/196/Add.9 dated 28 April 2008). 
This value is based on the supervised trials data presented to the 1999 JMPR. As this data is quite 
old, the EC allows one year to the interested parti es to produce trials to support the value of 0.5. 
Failing to submit this information on time, the MR L will be lower to the Limit of Determination 
(LOD) that it is the level suggested by the EFSA in their latest opinion issued last 15 September 2008.  
 Pregunta 9  
¿Cuál es la posición de las Comunidades Europeas en  relación con la preocup ación de algunos países 
manifestada en el Comité de MSF de la OMC, en relación con la definición de  "alimento tradicional" 
de terceros países? (Página 65, párrafo 92) 
 
Respuesta
 
The EC is working on the proposal for Novel Foods with the European Parliament. The new proposal 
which is currently under consideration will take into a ccount of historical records on safe food use in 
the country of origin and other provisions to facilita te the approval of such novel foods. If the history 
of safe food use in the country of origin has been  demonstrated, the food could be placed on the 
market on basis of a notification of the food business operator intending to market the food. 
 
ix) Compras Gubernamentales 
 
Pregunta 10  
¿Posee la Unión Europea listas de las entidades en cargadas de compras por Estado miembro en los 
idiomas oficiales de la OMC, en aquellos casos en los que el idioma oficial del Estado miembro no es 
un idioma oficial de la OMC? (Página 65, párrafo 95)  Respuesta
 
The lists of entities covered by the EU procurement directives are attached to the EU procurement 
directives. These lists are available in English, French and Spanish. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 334  
 
 Pregunta 11 
¿Debe una empresa registrarse ante una autoridad púb lica para poder participar en los procedimientos 
de contratación? (Página 65, párrafo 95)  
Respuesta
 
The EU procurement regime does not impose any such requirement for participation to a 
procurement procedure. 
 
Pregunta 12 
¿Deben los proveedores extranjeros tener un local o sucursal en el Estado miembro de la Unión 
Europea para poder participar en los procedimie ntos de contratación? (Página 67, párrafo 101) 
 
Respuesta  
Foreign suppliers, who benefit from the access to th e EU procurement market based on an Agreement 
(GPA or bilateral) are not required to establish a local presence in any of the EU Member States  
 
Pregunta 13  
Si una compañía extranjera se establece en un Estado miembro de la Unión Europea, ¿será ésta 
considerada como un proveedor de la comunidad en otros Estados miembros, o será considerada 
como un proveedor extranjero? (Página 67, párrafo 101).  Respuesta
 
A foreign company, which is established in one EU Member State, in accordance with the relevant 
legal provisions and requirements of the company law of that Member State, will be looked at as a 
Community undertaking.   
Pregunta 14 ¿Podría la Unión Europea proporcionar información  sobre cuáles procedimientos de contratación 
fueron adjudicados a proveedores extranjeros durante el 2006? (Página 67, párrafo 101)  
Respuesta
 
As mentioned in the Secretariat's Report, no data are available at this stage on the amount of 
procurement from non-EC origin. Identifying the act ual nationality of a firm is extremely difficult as 
the structure of its capital is not always know n and the potential nationality of the bidder does not 
necessarily reflect the trade flow resulting from the contract award. The EC is currently considering 
how to implement the principles laid down in Regulation (EC) No. 716/2007 of the European 
Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on Co mmunity statistics on the structure and activity 
of foreign affiliates  [Official Journal L 171 of 29.06.2007] and the Recommendations Manual on the 
Production of Foreign Affiliates Statistics in the a rea of public procurement (please refer to the 
following website http://epp.eurostat.ec.eur opa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/ KS-RA-07-002/EN/KS-RA-
07-002-EN.PDF). 
 
ARGENTINA  
 
I. PRINCIPALES ACONTECIMIENTOS REGISTRADOS EN LAS CE 
1. Evolución institucional 
 
Párrafo 5 
En el citado párrafo la CE afirma: "Tras la notif icación a la OMC de las adhesiones de Bulgaria y 
Rumania, la CE inició los procedimientos de la OMC establecidos en el párrafo 6 del artículo XXIV 
del GATT y en el artículo XXI del AGCS  con varios Miembros de la OMC". 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 335 
 
 
 Pregunta 1 
Al respecto, resulta de interés para la República Argentina conocer cuáles fueron las justificaciones 
técnicas que consideró la CE para no convocar a nuestro país a las negociaciones relativas a la 
modificación del contingente arancelario de ajos frescos o refrigerados (pos ición arancelaria 0703 20 
00) en ocasión de constitución de la unión aduanera con Bulgaria y Rumania. En tal sentido, se 
recuerda que la Argentina detenta el derecho de pr imer negociador, es decir de negociador original en 
relación con este contingente, en virtud de En tendimiento sobre el Artículo XXVIII de la Ronda 
Uruguay.  
Respuesta
 
While Argentina has an Initial Negotiating Ri ght (INR) on garlic in the EC-15 schedule , it did not 
have an INR on garlic in the schedules of Bulgaria or Romania , which would have entitled it to 
participate in the negotiations related to the 2007 en largement of the EC. There is no trace of trade 
on garlic between Argentina and Bu lgaria or Romania. Therefore Argentina can not be granted a 
principal supplying status to entitle it to participate in  the negotiations, or a substantial interest status 
which would have given it an entitlement for consultations.  
II. PRINCIPALES ACONTECIMIENTOS REGISTRADOS EN LAS CE 
3) RESULTADOS ECONÓMICOS Y RETOS FUTUROS 
 
Respuesta de las CE para hacer frente a la c onmoción financiera y la desaceleración económica 
 
Párrafos 27 y 28  
La CE aborda muy sintéticamente este tema en los párrafos 27 y 28 de su informe. En particular, en 
cuanto a las medidas referidas al estímulo económico,  las CE mencionan el "marco temporal para la 
ayuda estatal destinada a hacer fren te a los efectos de las restricciones crediticias sobre la economía 
real" y la adopción del Plan de Re cuperación Económica. Asimismo, las CE destacan en su párrafo 27 
que "las intervenciones gubernamenta les nacionales [deberán ser] comp atibles con el marco jurídico 
de las CE y no [distorsionarán] la competencia ni [tendrán] efectos no deseables en otros países."  
 
Pregunta 2 
Atento los múltiples programas de ayuda estatal puest os en marcha por los Es tados miembros de las 
CE, los cuales se suman a instrumentos de ayuda estatal preexistentes, se solicitan precisiones a las 
CE acerca de lo que considera "efectos no deseab les en otros países" y los mecanismos que tiene 
previstos para garantizar que tales ayudas no te ngan "efectos no deseables en otros países", en 
particular habida cuenta del efecto colectivo de las mismas en sectores de la economía determinados 
(i.e. automotriz). 
 
Asimismo, interesa conocer comentarios sobre la compatibilidad con el acuerdo sobre subvención y 
sobre el efecto desplazamiento.  
Respuesta
 
By definition, State aid affects competition within the European Union. However, the Commission, in 
the context of its control of compatibility of State aid, must ensure that any effect on competition is 
limited and proportional to the objective of the measu re. The aid measures that are authorised under 
the temporary framework adopted in December 2008 by  the Commission in response to the economic 
crisis are specifically designed in order to limit any undue restriction of competition.  
 
First, the scope and aim of the aid measures allo wed under the temporary framework is limited. They 
only aim at remedying the specific economic problems caused by this exceptional downturn, i.e. the 
companies' difficult access to bank lending, and their resulting liquidity problems and declining 
investments.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 336  
 
 Effects on competition have also been minimised by proportionally adapting the level of aid to the 
types of beneficiaries. For instance, the tempor ary framework allows higher aid amounts to SMEs 
than to large firms, since such aid is genera lly recognised as having a more limited effect on 
competition, and since SMEs are more a ffected by the liquidity crisis.  
Finally, any effect will be limited in time, sinc e the temporary framewor k is only applicable until 
31 December 2010, in order to correspond to the an ticipated duration of the economic downturn. 
 In view of the characteristics of this framewo rk, the Commission does not believe that the measures in 
question significantly distort competition and trad e within the EU. For the same reasons, the 
Commission does not think that these aid measures have a significant negative effect on third 
countries. In this regard, they are fully compa tible with the provisions of the WTO Subsidies 
Agreement. On the contrary, this framework is  part of the Commission's Economic Recovery Plan 
adopted in November 2008. As a result, it should cont ribute to the recovery of the EU economy, which 
should bring positive economic effects worldwide. 
 
Párrafo 28  
En el párrafo 28 las CE señalan que "debe evitarse el recurso al proteccionismo". Sin embargo, desde 
el desencadenamiento de la crisis financiera y económica, las CE han adoptado una serie de medidas 
que pueden calificarse como proteccionistas (sin prejuzgar acerca de su compatibilidad con las 
normas OMC).  En tal sentido la Argentina desea destacar algunas de las principales medidas de corte proteccionistas implementadas por las CE tales como la reincorporación de las restituciones a la 
exportación, el incremento de derechos en el sector  de los cereales, y las subvenciones bajo el marco 
temporal adoptado por la Comisión en diciembr e de 2008 (subvención en  efectivo; garantías 
subvencionadas; préstamos subve ncionados; seguros de créditos a la exportación para grandes 
empresas y PyMES).  
Comunicación de la Comisión 2009/C 16/01 sobre "Marco temporal comunitario aplicable a las 
medidas de ayuda estatal para facilitar el acceso a la  financiación en el actual contexto de crisis 
económica y financiera".  En relación con esta comunicación, se estima que resulta rían útiles ciertas precisiones de parte de las 
CE A saber:  
 
Pregunta 3 
En el punto 4.7 de la Comunicación se trata el te ma de la "acumulación" de ayudas estatales y los 
techos de ayuda. Del mismo surgiría que se pue den acumular ayudas en concepto de garantías 
subvencionadas, préstamos subve ncionados, préstamos subvenci onados para la producción de 
productos verdes (ecológicos), seguros de crédito a la exportación a corto plazo y medidas de capital 
de riesgo, debiéndose sólo descontar la ayuda de mi nimis recibida a partir del 1º de enero de 2009 en 
la medida que ésta se conceda para un mismo propósito ya cubierto por alguna de las otras ayudas. Es 
decir, que a priori, no habría un techo o límite pa ra el monto global de a yudas que una misma empresa 
o sector podría recibir. ¿Podrían las CE confirmar si esta interpretación es correcta? ¿En su defecto, cuál sería la interpretación adecuada y de existir, cuál sería el límite  total de asiste ncia económica que 
una empresa podría recibir por año? 
 
Respuesta
 
Section 4.7 of the temporary framework only prov ides that any de minimis aid (i.e. EUR 200.000 
received over three years by the same company) should be deducte d from any aid received by a 
company under the temporary framework for the sa me eligible costs and for the same purpose.  
 It is correct that the temporary framework does not foresee any limit on the total aid that a company 
or a sector may receive under this  framework. It should however be noted that the aid that may be 
provided under certain measures authorised by the fr amework are indeed capped: thus for instance,  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 337 
 
 
 the cash grant is limited to EUR 500.000, while the ai d in the form of risk capital is limited to 70% of 
annual tranches of finance of  EUR 2,5 million.  Pregunta 4  
En el punto 6 de la Comunicación "Control e Inform ación", se indica que los Estados miembros deben 
presentar información específica "para todos los años adicionales en los que se aplique la presente 
Comunicación antes del 31 de octubre de cada año" .  Teniendo en cuenta que los instrumentos 
previstos en la Comunicación son "temporales" se gún se expresa en la misma, ¿podrían las CE dar 
precisiones acerca de la posibilidad de que los mism os sean prorrogados más allá del 31/12/2010?  En 
particular, ¿podrían aclarar si se está contemplando una excepción a los plazos específicamente 
fijados para cada uno de los instrumentos?  
 
Respuesta
 
As explained above, the tempora ry framework in place to address problems arising from the global 
financial and economic crisis will be in force until 31 December 2010, by which time the Commission 
believes the financial and economic crisis will be over. If  at some point the view would be formed that 
the crisis will not be over by that time, the Co mmission will consider whether or not to keep these 
temporary measures in place.  
 
II. PRINCIPALES ACONTECIMIENTOS RE GISTRADOS EN LA POLÍTICA 
COMERCIAL DE LAS CE (2007-2008) 
1) Introducción  
Párrafo 33  
 
Pregunta 5  
¿Podría las CE desarrollar la declaración que est ablece que "la liberalización en los productos no 
agrícolas es clave para la dimensión del desarrollo  de la Ronda dado que la gran mayoría de las 
exportaciones de los países en desarrollo son pr oductos manufacturados?. Nos gustaría recordar que 
las CE representaron el 44,7% de las exportaciones de manufacturas en 2007 y que si se incluyen otros países desarrollados, al suma total aproximada supera el 70% de acuerdo con el Informe sobre 
Comercio de la OMC del 2008. 
 
Respuesta
 
We consider that this question refers mainly to  negotiating stances in the Doha Development Agenda 
and should be put in the negotiating bodies where these issues are discussed. However, by way of 
answer, we can point to the figures that demonstr ate the growing importance of trade in manufactures 
for developing countries, in particular if they want to  emerge from the mere status of commodity 
dependence for their exports. In 2007, world ex ports of manufactured goods were valued at 
$9.5 trillion, 15 per cent higher than in 2006 and in line with the expansion of total merchandise 
exports. The share of manufactured goods in to tal merchandise exports was 70 per cent. In volume 
terms, exports of manufactured  products expanded by an average 6.5 per cent per year since 2000, 
maintaining its lead over both agriculture and fu els and mining products.  For South America, annual 
percentual change over 2000-2007 was 11% (value terms) . Over 30% of total exports from the region 
are manufactures. But for other developing countr ies- for instance, in Asia- the share of 
manufacturing is over 80%. Other developing count ry regions also registered record growth rates of 
manufacturing exports in 2007.  It is important to note that a large untapped poten tial for NAMA exports from DCs pertains to South-
South trade. This is to a large extent already unfoldi ng in Asia. However, d espite significant progress 
made since 1990s to reduce tariffs in NAMA, NAMA tariffs in DCs are still relatively high. Various 
researchers, amongst which those in UNCTAD, conc luded that South-South liberalization is 
accompanied by a larger impact in manufacturing sectors relative to agricultural products sectors. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 338  
 
 Therefore, NAMA trade remains a major driver of globalization and ec onomic dynamism around the 
world, and developing countries could reap a la rge share benefits from a successful DDA round.  
 
Párrafo 35 
 
Pregunta 6  
Las CE expresan que "Su posición negociadora en la Ronda de Doha se basa en la política agrícola 
común reformada". ¿Podrían las CE explicar de  que modo se compatibiliza la política agrícola 
reformada con el Mandato de Doha?  Respuesta
 
CAP reform is highly relevant in the DDA context as it enables the EC to contemplate a high level of 
ambition in terms of trade distorting support disciplines. An important measure, created in the reformed Common Agricultural Policy, is the Single Payment 
Scheme. This support measure conc erns decoupled support and conforms  to the criteria of paragraph 
6 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture.   
Políticas sectoriales 
Agricultura  Párrafo 49 
 
Pregunta 7  
¿Podrían las CE estimar si el efecto de las refo rmas en subsidios agrícolas llevadas a cabo, pueden 
conducir a una eventual reducción de la producción subsidiada? ¿Podría brinda r  un ejemplo concreto 
y representativo?.  Respuesta
 
As a result of the reforms most support has been d ecoupled therefore there is no impact on the level of 
production. Production takes place in response to market demand. 
 
Párrafo 51 
 
Pregunta 8  
¿Ha hecho la CE estudios sobre el impacto advers o de las subvenciones agropecuarias en su medio 
ambiente y si la reducción de subvencio nes es positiva para el medio ambiente?  
 
Respuesta  
Various evaluations of EC policies are carried out by  external consultants and can be consulted at the 
website: http://ec.europa.eu/ agriculture/eval/index_en.htm 
 
Otras cuestiones sobre las perspectivas de la política agrícola:  
 
Pregunta 9  
Más allá del resultado de Doha sobre agricultura que eventualmente se alcance cuando haya acuerdo 
entre todos sus miembros, ¿existe alguna perspectiva de que la CE pueda tener en todos sus productos 
un perfil de protección liberal como el de muchos países en desarrollo (por ejemplo: aranceles ad 
valorem no mayores al 35%, sin otras barreras arancel arias)?. En caso que no fuera así, ¿cuál sería la 
justificación económica para mantener niveles de protección mucho más elevados que los de muchos 
países en desarrollo?   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 339 
 
 
 Respuesta  
We understand this question only in the DDA cont ext, where tariff protection is discussed under the 
market access pillar of the negotia tions. As matters stand, the EC does not envisage any liberalisation 
outside the DDA context. 
 
Pregunta 10  
¿De qué manera la CE cumplirá con sus obligacion es multilaterales en materia de pagos bajo Caja 
Azul dado que ha eliminado a partir de la camp aña 2009 el programa de  set-aside, incorporando 
3.8 millones de hectáreas a la producción, las que ad emás serán elegibles para recibir subsidios a la 
producción? 
 
Respuesta  
Support for those sectors where the obligatory set aside applied has been decoupled in the 2008 
Health Check decisions. Together with the obligato ry set-aside coupled Blue Box payments were also 
eliminated.  
Pregunta 11 
Cómo prevé la CE regular los nuevos subsidios dir ectos que podrán aplicar los Estados miembros al 
implementarse el mecanismo de modulación que prev é el Health Check? ¿Cómo será la notificación 
dado que serán los Estados miembros los que iden tificarían los sectores a los que han aplicado esos 
subsidios? 
 
Respuesta
 
Amounts resulting from modulation will for the large part be used for Rural Development measures. 
These measures concern in most  cases Green Box measures. 
 
Pregunta 12  
¿Cómo prevé la CE implementar y monitorear el us o de subsidios a la producción aplicados en forma 
discrecional a cualquier sector agropecuario por parte de cada Estado Mi embros, que autoriza el 
Artículo 68 del Reglamento del Health Check? Cómo  será la notificación de estas medidas a la OMC? 
 Respuesta
 
There will be a regular information flow from Me mber States to the Commission. The payments will 
be notified according to their use, either in Green Box, Blue Box or Amber Box. 
 
6) Sostenibilidad y desarrollo i) Comercio y desarrollo sostenible  Energía sustentable 
 
Pregunta 13  
En el párrafo 69 del documento WT/TPR/G/214, se h ace referencia a  amplias consultas  sobre el 
impacto en materia de sostenibilidad de sus negoc iaciones comerciales. La Argentina quisiera saber 
con qué criterio se eligen los participantes en dichas consultas, si puede haber participantes de países 
que tienen comercio con las Comunidades Europeas y, en ese caso, ¿cómo se toma en cuenta la 
opinión de los actores no europeos? Además, la Argentina quisiera saber cómo se articulan las 
opiniones e informaciones que los participantes pr ovean -especialmente los no europeos-, con las 
evaluaciones que realizan tanto los expertos inde pendientes cuanto el Grupo Común de Investigación, 
de ser el caso. 
 
Respuesta
 
Sustainability Impact Assesments (SIAs) are conduc ted in a transparent and inclusive manner that 
permits all stakeholders, EC and non-EC alike, to fo llow the process and contribute with views.  SIAs 
are carried out by independent consultants. All SI As are published online whic h permits all interested WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 340  
 
 parties to provide input on the reports . As public consultation is a main feature of SIAs, there are also 
local/regional workshops in partner countries. The aim is to have an interactive debate on SIA findings and gather the views of local stakeholders.  The independent consultant carrying out the SIA 
is therefore requested to build a good network of local contacts. The contacts should cover a balanced 
representation of organisations from all the di mensions of sustainable development and include 
representatives from national authorities, business, trade unions and civil society.  
 Pregunta 14 
Argentina quisiera conocer cómo interpretan las CE la compatibilidad entre las reglas de la OMC y 
los estándares ambientales y sociales que, como se menciona en el párrafo 70 del mismo documento 
antes citado, están siendo incluidos por las CE cada vez más en sus negociaciones comerciales. 
Asimismo, quisiera conocer los procedimientos seguidos por las CE para asegurar que dichos 
estándares respondan a criterios científicos. Finalmen te, apreciaría recibir clarificación acerca de las 
previsiones que hayan tomado las CE para que dichos estándares no funcionen como barreras 
innecesarias al comercio.   Respuesta
 
As was referred to in Paragraph 70 of the EC report, the EC aims to include "provisions and commitments on social and environmental stand ards" and create "mechanism for stakeholder 
involvement" in all bilateral agreements cu rrently under negotiation. These are commitments 
negotiated with partners and include shared commitm ent to international standards and agreements; 
confirmation of the parties' right to regulate, mechanisms for cooperation and follow-up, including 
public involvement.  Pregunta 15  
En el párrafo 71 del documento WT/TPR/G/214, l as CE dicen que su Sistema de Comercio de 
Emisiones es una herramienta de uso interno para reducir las emis iones de efecto invernadero. Sin 
embargo, en algunos casos el uso de dicho Sistema no puede ser considerado est rictamente doméstico, 
como por ejemplo la aplicación a las actividades de la aviación prevista en la Directiva 2008/101, ya 
que no sólo se aplica a las aerolíneas europeas, sino ta mbién a las aerolíneas de terceros países y sobre 
la base de actividades que en muchos casos se rea lizan fuera del territorio de las CE. La Argentina 
quisiera conocer la evaluación de las CE respecto de  la compatibilidad de la Directiva 2008/101 con 
las reglas de la OMC?  
 
Respuesta
 
The Commission considers that international air tr ansport is governed by the International Civil 
Aviation Organisation under the Chicago Convention. The Commission's analysis is that the inclusion 
of aviation in the EU Emissions Trading Scheme is  fully consistent with the Chicago Convention and 
bilateral air service agreements. In particular, the requirements of the ETS will be applied equally to 
all operators and therefore the scheme is fully cons istent with the principle of non-discrimination 
under the Convention. According to Annex on Ai r Transport Services to GATS, Directive 2008/101 is 
not subject to WTO rules."  
Pregunta 16 En el párrafo 72 del documento WT/TPR/G/214, las CE  se refieren a la liberalización de los bienes y 
servicios ambientales, tanto a nivel multilateral co mo bilateral, y también a otras herramientas de 
política relevantes para alcanzar los objetivos de la UE  en materia de cambio climático. Entre ellas se 
menciona la certificación de los productos elaborados  sobre la base de recursos naturales. La 
Argentina quisiera saber cómo están garantizando las CE que el establecimiento de estos requisitos de 
certificación no actúe como barreras innecesarias al comercio.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 341 
 
 
 Respuesta  
Paragraph 72 of the report refers to various policy in struments that could be explored with a view to 
deciding if they can positively contribute to the attain ment of climate change objectives. Certification 
of natural resource based products is one of these instruments but detailed analyses is needed on a 
case-by-case basis to decide wh ether its use and in what context  and format, and on what products 
would be relevant and appropriate. Obviously, when exploring options for the use of certification, one 
needs to consider the effects on different poli cy objectives and ensure that the measure does not 
restrict trade. The use of certification is relevant fo r example for the case of products related to the 
production of renewable energy and forestry and forestry  products. In the latter area, the EC works 
with exporting countries through voluntary partn ership agreements (EU Fo rest Law Enforcement, 
Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan).  
Otras cuestiones sobre energía  
 
Pregunta 17  
La nueva Directiva de uso de energías renovabl es -RED- establece una serie de criterios de 
sustentabilidad para la producción de materias  primas agrícolas para su transformación en 
biocombustibles con el objeto de reducir los gases de efecto invernadero. Podría la CE explicar la 
compatibilidad de los criterios obligatorios de su stentabilidad del Artículo 17 de tal Directiva que 
deben ser cumplidos por terceros países que exportan a la UE bi ocombustibles y su compatibilidad 
con las disciplinas de la OMC, en particular el Acuerdo OTC? 
 
Respuesta
 
The scheme is not an import ban. Biofuels which do not meet the criteria can still be imported and 
marketed in the EC. They will not, however, receive subsidies from EU Member States, nor count 
towards the obligation that the EC has taken that each Member State will ensure that at least 10% of 
its energy for transport shall be renewable by 2020. 
 The scheme is not an interference in the right of countries to use their land as they wish. It is an 
expression of 2 imperatives for the EU public which concern both imports into the EC and
 EC 
production. Firstly, that taxpayers money used to en courage environmentally friendly biofuels should 
not lead to the destruction of the environment and in particular sensitive bio-diverse areas. Secondly, 
that the alleged benefits of biof uels should not lead to a net increase in gree nhouse gases. Forest 
clearance in third countries has an effect on the EU to the extent it increases greenhouse gases. 
 The EU is not being unilateral. The proposal has  important provisions recognising the importance of 
national and international schemes,  governmental and voluntary, and they can and will be taken into 
account. International science (UN International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and international 
norms have been used to the extent possible.  This is part of a comprehensive package of pr oposed measures designed to improve the greenhouse 
gas performance in the EC. In no way are third c ountries exporting biofuels singled out. The package 
imposes many burdens on the EC producers themselves. 
 
The EC is aware of the trade issues which the su stainability issues has already raised and will most 
likely continue to raise. Concerns as to the possible use of the su stainability scheme as an instrument 
to favour EC production by reduc ing access to the EC market have b een raised by some countries. 
The scheme has been labelled as another form of green protectionism : using (misusing) 
environmental concerns to protect EC's interests. 
 The sustainability scheme addresses genuine environm ental concerns as exp ressed not just at EC 
level but at world level. Concerns and reservations as to the possibility of biofuels to deliver real 
environmental benefits unless produced and used in a sustainable way have become an integral part WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 342  
 
 of the overall debate on biofuels. Environmental su stainability is the sine qua non condition for the 
implementation of the future biofuel policy: one cannot  exist without the other. Politically it would be 
impossible for the EU to pursue a policy worth its name without defining at the same time a sound sustainability framework accompanying its development.  
There is no need to recall that the scheme will equal ly apply to both domes tic production and imports 
and is not intended to be nor will act as a barrier to trade.  A central objective in defining the sustainability cr iteria has been to avoid any potential implicit, 
unintended discrimination against third countries. Since the regulatory effects associated with the 
sustainability criteria are non-discriminatory, the Commission considers that the criteria adopted are 
consistent with relevant international obligations and that they are required as relating to and /or 
necessary for the conservation of exhaustible natur al resources, the protection of human health, and, 
in certain circumstances, in order to preven t regulatory advantages being granted where the 
production of biofuels causes offence to public mora ls (e.g. the destruction of biodiverse rainforest). 
In this respect we believe that the system is fully WTO compatible. 
 The scheme has also been defined in the most m anageable and simple way - considering obviously the 
complexity of the issues it addresses, in order to  minimise the financial and administrative burden on 
operators, both in the EU and in third countries: this is further indication of the Commission's 
intention to minimise any possible negative impact on trade. 
 
Pregunta 18 
Podría la CE explicar sobré que disciplinas OMC se han basado para establecer en la citada Directiva 
como requisito el proveer información por parte de los operadores que expor ten biocombustibles a la 
UE sobre el cumplimiento en los respectivos tercer os países de requisitos relativos a polución, calidad 
del agua, aire, implementación de acuerdos inte rnacionales sobre trabajo, biodiversidad, etc.? 
 
Respuesta
 
Please see reply to question number 17.  
 Pregunta 19  
Podría la CE indicar en qué normativa OMC se ha basado para establecer en la misma Directiva 
valores de ahorro energético diferentes para las pr oducciones en la UE de biocombustibles y para las 
producciones de los mismos biocombustibles en terceros países, tal como surge del Anexo V de dicha Directiva? 
 
Respuesta
 
Please see reply to question number 17.  Pregunta 20  
¿Podría la CE explicar los motivos técnicos para no modificar los estándares de biodiesel de la norma 
EN 14214, en lo que se refiere el biodiesel en base a soja?. En la Comunicación de la EU Strategy for 
Biofuels (2006/34) la CE fomentaba el cambio de esta norma con el objeto de "facilitate the use of a 
wider range of vegetable oils ", sin embargo, desde esa fecha no han existido propuestas de 
modificación.  
Respuesta
 
The EU diesel market is characterised by a very high percentage of passenger cars in addition to 
heavy duty engine vehicles in contrast to the US , Brazil and Argentina where diesel fuel is used 
primarily in heavy duty engine vehicles. Given the fact that in the EU biodiesel market numerous 
vegetable oils are used it is n ecessary to ensure that the final biodiesel product from all these 
resources does not biodegrade/ oxidised with time and that the biodiesel maintains its fuel properties  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 343 
 
 
 and quality over long periods of storage time. CE N is working for a new stability method but this 
work has not been completed yet. Therefore it is necessary to maintain the standard until an 
appropriate new method is develope d and approved. Finally it is worth mentioning that the EN 14214 
standard is not a barrier to trade since in 2008 the US biodiesel industry exported about 
1,400,000 metric tonnes soya-based biodiesel to th e EU (see also the White Paper on Internationally 
Compatible Standards: 
http://ec.europa.eu/energy/renewables/biofue ls/doc/standard/white_paper_icbs_final.pdf.) 
 Cuestiones sobre política pesquera  
Pregunta 21  
¿Podría la CE indicar los fundamentos técnicos pa ra establecer a partir del 1º de enero del 2010 un 
certificado de captura validado por el Estado de bandera del buque pes quero para los productos de la 
pesca a ser importados a las CE desde terceros países , en el marco del Reglamento CE N° 1005/2008 
que establece un sistema comunitario para prevenir, desalentar y eliminar la pesca ilegal, no declarada 
y no reglamentada? ¿Es esta medida proporcional al  objetivo establecido por la CE? Cuáles son las 
evaluaciones efectuadas que llevaron a no adoptar otra s medidas menos perjudiciales para el comercio 
con países en desarrollo dado que las autoridades n acionales de los terceros países en desarrollo 
deberán haber adoptado e implementa do una amplia y compleja serie de medidas para poder notificar 
a las CE antes del 1º de enero del 2010 que cuentan con un régimen de aplicación, control y 
observancia en materia de conservación y ordenaci ón de recursos pesqueros aplicables a sus buques y 
que, además, sus autoridades públicas están facultadas para certificar la veracidad de los datos que 
figuran en los certificados de captura que validen  y a efectuar las comprobaciones correspondientes. 
 
Respuesta
 
The EC Regulation No. 1005/2008 is justified as a means to achieve a legitimate purpose, which is the 
conservation of the fish stocks by combating IUU fishing. The implementation of its provisions, 
including its catch certificate, will facilitate legal  trade and prevent it from facing unfair competition 
from illegal products. The EU will apply trade me asures where multilateral and regional cooperation 
have failed to provide sufficient means to combat I UU fishing. It should be highlighted that the EC 
has been (and still is) proactive in seeking multilat eral, regional and bilateral solutions to IUU 
fishing activities for the last decade (e.g. in FAO, RFMOs, Fisheries Partnership Agreements). 
 
The means introduced by the Regulation are prop ortional to the EC objectives regarding the fight 
against IUU fishing, in accordance with the releva nt international instruments. These means are 
directly inspired from measures already adopted, ma inly at regional level, which proved to be 
efficient to combat IUU fishing and to facilita te the legal trade with fishery products.  
 
No alternative means could be identified in the course of the preparato ry works to the Commission's 
proposal to adopt this Regulation.  The EC is not asking flag States to comply with the EC  rules, laws or management measures, i.e., it is 
not imposing its own standards. The IUU Regulation refers to laws and regulations  adopted by third 
countries, as well as international con servation and management measures (UNCLOS, FAO, 
RFMOs). The EC is not expecting either that third countries introduce new conservation and management measures. When validating a catch cer tificate, flag States exporting fishery products to 
the EC will have to confirm that their catches we re done according to their own conservation and 
management rules when they have no conflicti ng information suggesting otherwise.  
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 344  
 
 Cuestiones sobre política de salud pública 
 
Pregunta 22  
¿Podría la CE indicar cuáles son los fundamentos  científicos que llevaron a no adoptar valores 
CODEX en la fijación de límites máximos de re siduos en productos de origen vegetal que se 
encuentran vigentes en el marco del Reglamento CE 396/2005? 
 
Respuesta
 
Within the EC, all CODEX’ MRL’s for PPP are applied unless new data indicates that they are 
potentially dangerous. According to the Article 2.2 of the SPS Agreement "Members shall ensure that 
any sanitary or phytosanitary measure [...] is based on scientific principles". The EC is fully 
transparent on its MRL policy at EC level and do not discriminate against third countries producers. 
 Pregunta 23 
¿Podría la CE señalar cuáles son los fundamentos ci entíficos para otorgar un  waiver  de uso de 
productos fitosanitarios en el mercado comunitario por varios años mediante  la Directiva 91/414, 
mientras que para los terceros países no existen plazos de implementación o excepciones en materia 
de límites máximos de residuos de productos de origen vegetal? 
 
Respuesta
 
The EC is not aware of any "waiver" in relation of Dir. 91/414. The EC would like to ask you for 
further specific explanation in this  regard. As setting of MRLs is concerned, the same MRLs and the 
same implementation deadlines apply to food and feed  produced in the EC and imported from third 
countries. 
 
Cuestiones sobre Política Forestal 
 
Pregunta 24  
¿Podría la CE explicar las razones para establecer  un esquema de certificación por parte de terceros 
países relativo a la tala ilegal para la comercializaci ón de maderas en las CE, ante la posibilidad de 
recurrir a otras medidas de efecto equivalente pero menos distorsivas del comercio, conforme lo que 
establece el Acuerdo TBT de la OMC? 
 
Respuesta  
Illegal logging is a concern in Europe. The EC wi shes to discourage this activity by minimising the 
risk of consumers unknowingly purchasing illegally ha rvested timber or products derived from such 
timber. One of the main actions taken by the European  Union in this field has been to invite interested 
countries supplying timber and timber products to enter into FLEGT (Forest Law Enforcement 
Governance and Trade) Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPAs) with the EU. Through these 
bilateral agreements,  those interested countries und ertake to establish schemes to verify the legality 
of their timber and, as proof of this legality, sh ipments of timber and timber products to the EU have 
to be accompanied by FLEGT Licences. As a resu lt, for timber and timber products originating from 
those countries, only shipments accompanied by FLEG T licences will be allowed to enter the EU. As 
the name suggests, entering into  these agreements is voluntary, and the above-mentioned procedure 
does not apply to countries that are not party to such agreements. Ghana was the first country to initial such an agreement and five other countries are currently in negotiation (Cameroon, Congo-
Brazzaville, Indonesia, Liberia, and Malaysia). With in the EU market, the private sector uses a 
variety of means to provide an assurance of le gality of timber they commercialise, including forest 
certification and private sector codes of conduct.  
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 345 
 
 
 WT/TPR/S/214, INFORME DE LA SECRETARÍA 
 OBSERVACIONES RECAPITULATIVAS M
ARCO INSTITUCIONAL  
 
Párrafo 5. 
Pregunta 25  
Considerando que el Tratado de Lis boa alterará la estructura de las instituciones de la CE, resultar de 
interés conocer como se prevé que funcione la  presidencia electiva que allí se establece.  
 Respuesta
 
The future President of the European Council shall be  elected, by a qualified majority, for a term of 
two and a half years, renewable once. He/She shall not hold a national office.  He/She shall chair the European Council and dri ve forward its work, ensure the preparation and 
continuity of the work of the European Council in cooperation with the President of the Commission, 
and on the basis of the work of the General Affa irs Council, endeavour to  facilitate cohesion and 
consensus within the European Council  and  present a report to the European Parliament after each 
of the meetings of the European Council. The President of the European Council shall, at his level and in that capacity, ensure the external 
representation of the Union on issues concerning its common foreign and security policy, without 
prejudice to the powers of the High Representative of  the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security 
Policy. 
 
II REGÍMENES DE COMERCIO E INVERSIÓN 
A
CUERDOS COMERCIALES  
ACUERDOS Y DISPOSICIONES COMERCIALES PREFERENCIALES 
Acuerdos en curso de negociación, MERCOSUR  Página 35 , párrafo 65. Comentario 26  
La República Argentina ha observa do que el documento WT/TPR/G/ 214, 5) relaciones comerciales 
bilaterales y regionales, hace mención a que las negociación tendientes a lograr una Acuerdo de 
Asociación  Bi regional entre el MERCOSUR y la CE están actualmente en suspenso, a la espera de una conclusión satisfactoria de las negociaciones del PDD. En ese sentido, cabe señalar que la República Argentina sostiene su compromiso para  lograr un acuerdo ambicioso y equilibrado de 
carácter único que garantice el interés para las partes más allá del plano multilateral. 
 
R
EGLAMENTOS TÉCNICOS   
OBSTÁCULOS TÉCNICOS AL COMERCIO  
 Página 69, párrafo 72 Pregunta 27  
De acuerdo a lo señalado en el citado párrafo respect o de los reglamentos técnicos que han sido objeto 
de cuestionamientos por parte de los Miembros de la OMC, tal como el Reglamento CE 737/02 y su 
modificatorio N° 316/04 que restringe la utilización de la expresiones tradicionales  (y otras análogas) para las etiquetas de vinos producidos en territo rio extra comunitario, la República Argentina desea 
manifestar su preocupación por la institución de un derecho de exclusividad en el uso de tales 
términos en español en favor del Re ino de España, ya que el uso del  español no es privativo de dicho 
país, sino un idioma compartido con terceros países,  entre los que se cuenta la República Argentina, 
implicando caso contrario una virtual expropiación de  carácter unilateral de determinados términos 
del idioma español. En este sentido, podría la CE e xplicar cuales son las justificaciones técnicas para 
establecer la medida citada. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 346  
 
 Respuesta
 
Contrary to the assertion of Argentina, there is no exclusive right for traditional terms since third 
countries may use them, upon request, provided they are regulated in the third countries concerned 
and that their use does not mislead consumers as to the quality and characteristics of the product sold 
with the indication of such a term. A traditional term is reserved in a certain language and for certain 
wine products (e.g. "reserva" is only reserved in Spanish for quality  still wines produced in specified 
regions (wines with designations of origin)). Therefore,  this term can be freely used for liqueur or 
sparkling wines and in another language (provided t hat it is not reserved in this other language as 
well). As any labelling particulars, its use s hall not mislead consumers as to the quality and 
characteristic, of the wine product. 
 
Pregunta 28 
Resulta de interés para la República Argentina c onocer cuales fueron las justificaciones técnicas que 
consideró la CE para establecer el Reglamento (C E) N° 834/07 y su modificatorio (Reglamento (CE) 
967/2008) sobre producción y etiquetado de productos eco lógicos, en particular su artículo 24 sobre la 
obligación de etiquetar aquellos productos orgánicos o ecológicos procesados en la CE -y por ende 
comunitarios- identificando el origen de las materias  primas. En ese sentido, cabe señalar que desde la 
perspectiva de nuestro país, tal distinción no sólo resulta innecesaria y podría eventualmente tornarse 
perjudicial para los productos extra comunitarios, sino que podría asimismo considerarse inconsistente con los compromisos vigentes en el orden multilateral, ya que no se encuentra avalada 
por lo dispuesto en los Acuerdos sobre Reglas de Origen o sobre OTC de la OMC, como así tampoco 
por las normas Codex, en tanto cuerpo normativo multilateral de referencia en la materia. 
 
Respuesta
 
The EC would like to thank Argentina for its in terest on this EC's re gulation on organic products 
which went into effect on 1 January 2009. This is a voluntary scheme and its provisions only need to 
be fulfilled if a producer wants to sell its products labelled as "organic" in the EC and at least 95 
percent of the ingredients of the product are or ganic. Non-organic products will be entitled to 
indicate on the label that they contain some organic ingredients. We understand the comments made by Argentina ref er to the origin labelling for organic products 
produced in the EC containing raw materials from Argentina. As of July 2010, pre-packaged food 
products that use the Community organic logo and th at contain raw materials from non-EU countries 
will have to carry the "EU/non-EU agriculture" stat ement on the label. It is understood Argentina 
fears that this may influence the choice of cons umers. The EC has analysed the concerns voiced by 
Argentina in this communication, and has also di scussed them bilaterally with their authorities and 
has concluded that there is no evidence to support th e argument that the labelling requirements could 
negatively affect Argentinean sales of organic raw materials to the EC. The EC nevertheless remains 
available to discuss this matt er further with Argentina. 
 P
ÁGINA 70, PÁRRAFO 73 
Pregunta 29 
Tal como se menciona en dicho párrafo y subsigui entes, la República Argentina y otros países han 
manifestado su preocupación respecto de la implem entación del sistema REACH, no solo en razón de 
la previsible suba de los costos que se generará para la industria, si no también respecto de su eventual 
consistencia con los compromisos asumidos en el ám bito multilateral. Cabe asimismo señalar que la 
Argentina ha encontrado un gran número de inconvenientes al requerir información y asesoramiento 
por parte de la ECHA, situación que  genera una dificultad adicional para un país en desarrollo como 
el nuestro. En este sentido, la República Argentina desea señalar que si bien la CE cuenta con la 
legítima facultad de tomar las medidas que estime necesarias para la protección de la salud humana y 
el medio ambiente, el Reglamento (CE) 1907/2006 puede afectar al comercio. En virtud de ello, 
podría la CE explicar cuales son las medidas que prevé para asistir a los PED que potencialmente se vean afectados, e informar si la  CE se encuentra analizando algún ti po de ajuste a fin de evitar las 
restricciones comerciales que podría gene rar el Reglamento de referencia.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 347 
 
 
 Respuesta  
Regarding the concerns about costs of complying with REACH, it is noted that the need to ensure that 
the obligations contained in the Regulation shou ld not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to 
achieve the goals intended by the Regulation, notably the protection of human health and the 
environment, was a main concern during the legi slative process leading to the adoption of REACH.  
Many features of the Regulation were specifically designed to address this concern.  Among others, 
we would note that the registration requirements de pend on volume in which a particular substance is 
produced or imported by an EU-based legal entity, that substances sufficiently regulated under other 
sectoral legislation have been exempted, that the entry into force of the ob ligations in REACH has 
been done progressively, and that reductions up to 90% of the registration fees apply to SMEs. 
 
Regarding the alleged difficulties experienced by Ar gentina in getting assistance from ECHA, we note 
that a vast effort has been done to make available free of charge to any operator worldwide guidance, 
tools and other materials to explain REACH.  It  is noted that Argentina has also addressed the 
European Commission and ECHA directly and that a response has been given to all the issues and 
concerns raised.  Additionally, it is noted that a num ber of actions have taken place in Argentina with 
a view to address questions about REACH and dissem inate information; among others, we refer to 
the conference organised by the EC delegation in Buenos Aires on the 16th of May 2007 and a number 
of communications sent from the delegation to Industrial Chambers with information regarding 
REACH.  The possibility to organise further events should be discussed with the EC delegation. 
 
As noted above, REACH was designed with great care to  ensure that the obligations contained in the 
Regulation were not more trade-restrictive than necessary to achieve the goals intended by the 
Regulation.  The Commission continues monitoring  the application of REACH having due regard to 
this principle, among others.   
CUESTIONES SANITARIAS Y FITOSANITARIAS  
 Página 72, párrafo 78. Pregunta 30  
El Sistema de Alerta Rápida para Alimentos y Piensos (RASFF), en tanto sistema informativo de 
intercambio de notificaciones sanitarias dentro de la CE que opera sobre la base de normativa 
nacional. La falta de previsibilidad, transp arencia y homogeneidad propician una elevada 
discrecionalidad en las actuaciones en esta materia a nivel de los Estados Miembros, que entorpecen 
consecuentemente el flujo de comercio. As imismo, la publicidad de las notificaciones 
descontextualiza la realidad, por evidenciarse errores metodológicos , así como deficiencias en la 
manipulación de las mercaderías, afectando el posicionamiento potencial de los productos 
involucrados en el mercado comunitario, y pe rjudicando la imagen del producto frente a los 
importadores.  En ese sentido, la República Arge ntina desea conocer si la CE está realizando las previsiones 
necesarias a fin de asegurar la aplicación de indicadores de evaluación formalmente definidos homogéneamente a nivel comunitario,  tanto de calidad de gestión co mo de resultados, que colaboren 
con la superación de las dificultades que este régimen evidencia en su funcionamiento, en perjuicio de 
la imagen de calidad de los productos invol ucrados, y con el subsecuente efecto sobre sus 
cotizaciones. 
 
Respuesta
 
The RASFF system exchanges information among the Me mber States, on the basis of the harmonised 
European legislation. However exceptionally and in the case of not existing harmonised legislation, 
the Member States can use their national legislation or including another international legislation available. But these two last options are not relev ant due to the high level of harmonisation on the 
area. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 348  
 
 The principal aim of the RASFF is the protection of the health of the consumers, avoiding that 
contaminated products being distributed in the Eu ropean Union, either made in Europe or coming 
from other countries. Harmonisation between the Member States of the European Union regarding 
the use of the RASFF is very high, however the EC continue to work in more detailed measures of 
implementation. 
 
Página 75, párrafo  87. Pregunta 31 
Dado que en los últimos años se han suscitado en algunos estados miembros de la CE (Polonia, 
Francia y Austria) medidas tendientes a mantener restricciones contrarias al fallo del grupo especial 
del OSD de la OMC sobre OGMs, nuestro país desea conocer de qué manera la CE prevé conseguir la 
adecuación de la normativa comunitaria por parte de los Estados Miembros en cumplimiento del fallo 
citado, y qué plazos estima para ello. 
 
Respuesta
 
The SPS Agreement is part of the "acquis communaut aire". Each EC Member State is responsible for 
the implementation of Community law within its ow n legal system. Under the Treaties (Article 226 of 
the EC Treaty), the Commission of the European  Communities is responsible for ensuring that 
Community law is correctly applied. Consequently , where a Member State fails to comply with 
Community law, the Commission has powers of its own to try to bring the infringement to an end and, where necessary, may refer the case to the Europe an Court of Justice. The Commission takes 
whatever action it deems appropriate in response to either a complaint or indications of 
infringements which it detects itself. Non-compli ance means failure by a Member State to fulfil its 
obligations under Community law. See link: http://ec.europa.eu/community_l aw/infringements/infringements_en.htm 
 
I. Políticas agrícolas (Parte IV.2.i):  
1. Superficie cultivada con cultivos oleginosos: 
 
De acuerdo al cuadro IV.1 la superficie cultivada de colza fue de 5.333.000 hs . y de 6.057.000 tn. en 
2006 y 2007, respectivamente. Tomando en cuenta que: 
a. éste y otros cultivos oleaginosos se han benefi ciado de pagos directos que limitan la 
producción74 (caja azul del art. 6:5 del Acuerdo sobre Agricultura); y  
b. considerando que las CE asumieron en la Ronda Uruguay la condición adicional para 
estos pagos directos destinados a cultivos oleaginosos una superficie máxima (sujeta a 
reducción por "set aside") de 5.182.000 hect áreas para doce miembros de las CE75 y de 
5.482.000 hectáreas para 15 miembros76,  
 Pregunta 31  
¿como aplica esta limitación para 27 miembros? ¿Pue de indicar las medidas en sus disposiciones 
internas que prevengan la s uperación del nivel máximo? 
 
Respuesta
 
A Memorandum of Understanding on Oilseeds (Blair House Agreement) was negotiated with the U.S. 
at the end of the Uruguay Round. It allowed fo r EC domestic support to the production of certain 
oilseeds while at the same time setting out a number of  restrictions for this support in relation to the 
                                                      
74 Pagos compensatorios por hectárea, en la última  notificación disponible G/AG/N/EEC/59 del 2/3/09, 
correspondiente a los años 2005/2005 y 2005/2006. En años anteriores, también han recibido pagos. 
75 Lista de compromisos de subvenciones Nro. LXXX, Parte IV, sección 1, "Memorandum of 
Understanding on Oilseeds". 
76 Lista de compromisos de subvenciones Nro.  CXL, Parte IV, sección 1, "Memorandum of 
Understanding on Oilseeds".  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 349 
 
 
 then prevailing EC rules for coupled payments, in  particular a restriction on supported area. This 
agreement was incorporated in the Uruguay R ound Agreement in 1994. With Council Regulation 
(EC) No. 1251/1999 of 17 May 1999, the specific ai d for oilseeds ended a fter the marketing year 
2001/2002. As a result the limit on the Community oilseeds area is not any more applicable.  
Pregunta 32 ¿Podrían las CE informar cómo se ha limitado la producción de cada uno de los productos que han 
recibido pagos que limitan la producción? 
 
Respuesta
 
The production limiting character of Blue Box suppor t was implemented by legislation establishing 
fixed areas and yields for crop products and fixed headage number limits for animal products.  Pregunta 34  
Gestión de subvenciones de ayuda interna: ¿En el curso de un año agrícola, cómo verifica la Comisión 
de las CE el respeto por los límites máximos de ay uda interna establecidos en la lista de compromisos 
de las CE? ¿Existen informes regulares durante el año? ¿Cómo se verifica durante el año agrícola, los 
gastos que pudieran estar a cargo de los miembros? ¿Cuáles son los mecanismos de control? 
 
Respuesta
 
The European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAG F) does not cover the exp enses declared by 
Member States which go over the annual limits set by the Commission. The management of the direct 
payments scheme by Member States is regularly monitored via a clearance of accounts system 
 
Párrafo 51, páginas 15/16 y párrafo 26, página 104 
 
Pregunta 35  
¿Podría las CE explicar en detalle los factores toma dos en cuenta para justificar la eliminación del 
"set-aside"? 
 
Respuesta  
Coupled payments to arable crops have been aband oned under the Health Check decisions. Farmers 
will now receive decoupled payments and so there is  no artificial incentive for farmers to produce 
grains anymore. Market conditions have favoured a further decoupling operation, but irrespective of 
market conditions, for the market to function without  any distortion, the mandatory set-aside had to 
be abolished.  
Pregunta 36  
¿Podría las CE proveer datos sobre el impacto fiscal  del esquema "set-aside"(obligatorio y voluntario) 
en el nivel de producción de granos?  
 
Respuesta
 
It is not possible to establish an estimate of w hat production would have been without set-aside. 
However on the basis of legislation set-aside has varied between 0-15% and even 17.5% in the mid 
1990s for non rotational set aside. 
 
Pregunta 37  
¿Podría las CE informar cuál es el nivel de la su ma total esperada del esquema de pago agrícola único 
desde la eliminación del "set-aside"?  
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 350  
 
 Respuesta
 
The abolition of the set-aside obligation has no impact on the SPS amounts, both at global and 
individual farmer's levels. Appropriations fo r the Single Payment Scheme in 2009 are EUR 
27.2 billion.  
INDIA
 
 
Question 1 
There are impractical approaches to product testing in the European Union. Taking the example of 
aflatoxin in spices, processed food, groundnuts, cereals, etc., there is a requirement of meeting 
maximum residual limits (MRL) of aflatoxin in th ese products. The sampling procedure for testing 
purposes is extremely complex and expensive, which makes it technically and economically 
unfeasible for developing countries like India.  Mo reover, it is expected that the MRL should be 
measured 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 gr owth of aflatoxins. No exporting country can 
absolutely guarantee this, not even  the most developed countries.  
 Can EU provide technical support to companie s from developing countries to meet the MRL 
standards? 
 
Answer
 
The maximum levels for afla toxin total in peanuts for further pr ocessing are equivalent to the levels 
agreed in Codex Alimentarius. For the other commodities and for aflatoxin B1 Codex has not yet set a 
maximum level. Also the sampling provisions in EC for peanuts for further processing are equivalent 
to the sampling plan agreed in Codex.  
 
Hygiene regulations provide that the peanuts shou ld be transported in goo d hygienic conditions 
preventing any further formation of fungi and aflatoxins.   As for technical assistance, both the EC and its Member States are funding a wide variety of TBT-
related technical assistance programmes for deve loping and least developed countries. The EC 
provides a yearly update on these activities to the TBT Committee, with the latest submission dating 
from December 2008 (please see document ref. G/TBT/W/303).  Question 2 
Large number of India’s agricultural exports to the European Union (EU) has been rejected by EU’s 
Food Safety Authority in the name of testing and certification requirements, and labelling norms. This 
has led to huge commercial losses for Indian exporters.   What are the testing and certification requirement s and labelling norms in EU on agricultural produce 
imports?   Answer
 
This question is too broad to be answered in a concise paragraph. Many explanations and 
information are already posted on the following website of Health and Consumers Directorate 
General:  http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/evaluation/index_en.htm  
 
Question 3 
It has been reported that Customs clearance pr ocedures in EU are unreasonable on many occasions. 
As per the EU procedures, the inspection authoriti es may destroy processed food consignment at ports 
if they claim there is a "risk to human health". In such cases, the exporters must have the first right to  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 351 
 
 
 the rejected consignment and should have the op tion to ship it to another country where it is 
acceptable according to its laws.  
 
What steps EC proposes to take to  facilitate trade in such cases? 
 
Answer  
The rules on the action to be taken on consignments  of food or feed which fail to meet EC import 
requirements are clearly set down in Articles 19 - 22 of Council Regulation 882/2004 of the European 
Parliament and the Council. With regard to the dest ruction of consignments, this is an option set out 
in Article 19.2, which states that if "a consignment is injurious to human or animal health or unsafe, 
the competent authority shall place the consignm ent in question under official detention pending 
destruction". It is therefore the risk assessment of  the competent authority whether or not the product 
falls into this category. 
 
Question 4 
The Rapid Alert system introduced by the EC to control the quality of food products entering the EU 
is creating difficulties for the Indian exporters of agri/marine products.  Threat of destruction of 
rejected consignments, member states taking unilateral decisions for lifting of alerts, lack of appeal mechanism etc. are still to be addressed.  What steps EC proposes to take to adequate ly address concerns of its trade partners? 
 
Answer
 
The issue of destruction of consignments is co vered above. With regard to consignments notified 
through the RASFF system as being serious or repea ted infringements then Article 24 of Council 
Directive 97/78 may be applied. This gives provisi on for EC Member States to carry out re-enforced 
checks on future consignments of the same product fr om the same country/establishment until there is 
clear evidence from laboratory sampling and testing that the risk is no longer relevant for subsequent imports. If such tests continue to give positive resu lts then the deletion of the establishment should be 
considered or a safeguard measure taken. The Comm ission is working on guidance for Member States 
to assist them in the harmonised application of th is Article and when such checks may be rescinded. 
Such guidance will be assisted by the Rapid Alert system and the TRACES computerised import 
system of the Commission. It is hoped that this will be in place before the end of 2009.  
Question 5 
Categorisation of India’s Geographical BSE (Bovine  Spongiform Encephalopathy) Risk (GBR) status 
by EC as a GBR-II country without adequate reasoni ng is a Non Tariff Barrier for exports of meat & 
meat products. 
 
What are the scientific grounds on whic h EC has based its categorization? 
 
Answer
 
The categorization of BSE status in the EC follows  the leading role of the OIE (World Organization of 
Animal Health). The EC rely on the valuable work carri ed out at OIE level to perform this task. India 
should apply to the OIE to be categorized in one of the three BSE risk categories.  
 
Question 6 
Export of egg products to the EU from Indian is taking place only on bilateral basis with some 
member states.  Notification of Indian units by EC will enable export of egg products to all the 
member states.  By when the EC will issue the notification facilitate trade of these products through out the EU?    WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 352  
 
 Answer
 
EC import requirements for egg products are har monized at the EC level. The approval of egg 
product establishments, however, is carried out by th e EC Member State conc erned. India can export 
egg products to individual Member States provided  that the harmonized EC import requirements are 
met and the egg products originat e from establishments agreed by the EC Member State concerned. 
According to EU information,  there are currently only three Indian establishments exporting egg 
products from India to the EC.  The lack of a harmonized system of approval of estab lishments and list does not act as a trade barrier 
as India can still export egg pro ducts to individual EC Member States. The European Commission 
consulted the Member States in July 2008 on this sp ecific issue, and no problems with India were 
reported. It further needs to be underlined that the EC has not drawn up a harmonized list of all egg 
product establishments for any third country. At the meeting in July 2008, India raised problems that 
had occurred with Germany. Both sides agreed that issues of this nature would be addressed on a 
case-by-case basis. As a follow-up to the meeting, I ndia would submit the details of this case to the 
EU side for clarification. 
 The harmonization of the list of establishments c an only be done for all third countries, exporting egg 
products, at the same time and not only for one country in isolation. 
 
Question 7 
Indian whisky is not allowed to be marketed in  Europe as whisky since it is manufactured out of 
alcohol made from molasses.  Currently these are be ing sold as rum or other spirits.  A separate 
classification and appropriate labeling mechanism by  the EC will help India in exporting Indian 
whisky to the EU as whisky.  
We would appreciate to receive EC’s comments in this regard. 
 
Answer
 
For reasons of the attainment of high consumer protection, the prevention of deceptive practices and 
the attainment of market transparency and fair co mpetition, Regulation (EC) 110/2008 on spirit 
drinks defines "Whisky" or "Whiskey" as: 
(a) Whisky or whiskey is a spirit drink produced exclusively by: 
 (i) distillation of a mash made from malted cereals with or without whole grains   of other cereals, which has been:   - saccharified by the diastase of the malt contained therein, with or    without other natural enzymes, 
  - fermented by the action of yeast; 
 (ii) one or more distillations at less than 94,8 % vol., so that the distillate has an   aroma and taste derived from the raw materials used,  (iii) maturation of the final distillate for at least three years in wooden casks not 
  exceeding 700 litres capacity. 
The final distillate, to which only water and plain ca ramel (for colouring) may be added, retains its 
colour, aroma and taste derived from the production pr ocess referred to in points (i), (ii) and (iii). 
 (b) The minimum alcoholic strength by volume of whisky or whiskey shall be 40 %. (c) No addition of alcohol as defined in Annex I(5), diluted or not, shall take place. (d) Whisky or whiskey shall not be sweetened  or flavoured, nor contain any additives 
 other than plain caramel used for colouring." 
 
This high quality production method results in a mu ltiple costs of production in comparison to the 
Indian production method. With the exception of rum,  any Indian spirit drink can be imported at zero  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 353 
 
 
 duty and can be freely sold on the EC market with  the correct sales denomination. In July 2007 
Regulation 110/2008 has been notifie d as draft to the WTO and has also been endorsed by India.  
 
Question 8 
It is reported that EC was contemplating to in troduce Ochratoxin-A (OTA) levels in green coffee 
beans which may adversely affect our exports.   
 What is the timeline for introducing OTA t ests in respect of green coffee beans? 
 
Answer
 
Taking into account the conclusions of the mo st recent risk assessment from the European Food 
Safety Authority (EFSA) on ochratoxin A in food , EC have no intention to set maximum levels for 
ochratoxin A in green coffee at EC level. A few Member States have in place national guideline levels 
for ochratoxin A in green coffee. 
 
Question 9 
The EU regulations specify inclusion of only herbal products and the stipulation that they should have 
a proven use of 30 years out of which 15 years shoul d be in the EU hinder market access for Indian 
Ayurvedic products. 
 
We would like to be informed of EC’s scientific basis on which such criteria ahs been developed and 
mandated? 
 
Answer  
The EC legislation was developed to create un iform marketing conditions avoiding differences 
between national laws that could hinder the free movem ent of foodstuffs.  Article 3 of this regulation 
provides that foods and food ingredients falling with in its scope must not present a danger or mislead 
the consumer.  They also must be clearly defined  so clear directions to consumers can be given if 
these are requested. India will appreciate that the food control authorities, when authorizing the selling of whatever food, must be sure that its nor mal consumption would not  be disadvantageous for 
the consumer, either due to the composition of the food itself or because sufficient cultural knowledge 
is required on how to handle it.   
 
Question 10 
The new EU regulatory framework which mandates regi stration, testing and certification of chemicals 
above one ton is likely to be trade restrictive.  Linkage to environmental standards, the process and 
production methods, the high cost for compliance and lack of technological and human resource 
capacity to comply may render the EU market inacce ssible for export of chemicals from India to EU. 
 
Can EU provide technical and fina ncial support to companies from developing countries to meet the 
provisions of REACH?  
Answer
 
At the outset, it must be stressed that REACH does not regulate the manufacturing process outside the 
EU and that it does not mandate specific standards either.  Regarding the concerns about costs of 
complying with REACH, it is noted that the need to ensure that the obligations contained in the 
Regulation should not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to achieve the goals intended by the 
Regulation, notably the protection of human health  and the environment, was a main concern during 
the legislative process leading to the adoption of REACH.  Many features of the Regulation were 
specifically designed to address this concern.  Am ong others, we would note that the registration 
requirements depend on volume in which a particular  substance is produced or imported by an EU-
based legal entity, that substances sufficiently regul ated under other sectoral legislation have been WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 354  
 
 exempted, that the entry into force of the obligations in REACH has been done progressively, and that 
reductions up to 90% of the registration fees apply to SMEs.  The EC has also provided (and continues to pr ovide) technical assistance on REACH to developing 
countries upon request.   In this regard, we refer fo r instance to the Asia Invest program that foresees 
substantial funding possibilities for capacity building in India in the chemicals sector, including for 
SMEs, and the integration of South Asian SMEs into the ‘EU-Asia REACH Alliance’. 
 
Question 11  
The EU is planning to cap the greenhouse gas emissi ons of airlines by including civil aviation under 
the purview of its Emission Trading Scheme from 1.1.2012.  The scheme would adversely affect 
operations of Indian airlines operating in Europe. 
 
What is the time period for placing such a proposed regime in to effect and for compliance by foreign 
airlines? 
 
Answer
 
In order to prevent the most dangerous effects of the climate change significant reductions in 
greenhouse gas emissions are necessary. Th e EU has adopted a comprehensive approach and 
ambitious targets to reduce em issions across the whole economy, including aviation. The EU 
emission's trading scheme (EU ETS) is an important mechanism by which emi ssions reductions will 
be achieved. For aviation, inclusion in an open emissions trading system is a very cost effective 
means of mitigating emissions.  The EU took action after the failure of ICAO to deliver concrete measures to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions from aviation. The inclus ion of aviation in the EU ETS has been implemented in such a way 
that it respects the ICAO principle of non-discrimi nation between aircraft operators on the grounds of 
nationality. It applies equally to all flights that arri ve at or depart from EU airports, so prevents 
competitive distortions between aircraft opera tors. Indian aircraft operators are not therefore 
adversely affected relative to oth er carriers operating routes to and from the EU. Furthermore, our 
analysis has shown that over two thirds of the emis sions covered by the scheme can be attributed to 
aircraft carriers based in the EU. The proportion attribut able to carriers based in India or other Non 
Annex 1 countries is very small. 
 The legislation including aviation into the EU ETS explicitly recognises that the scope of the scheme 
should be adjusted to take account of equivalent  measures to mitigate aviation emissions taken by 
other states.  If India were to adopt measures to reduce the climate change impact of flights departing 
from its airports, the EU legislation envisages that  options to provide for optimal interaction between 
the EU scheme and India's measures would be cons idered, in particular by excluding from the EU 
scheme flights arriving from India.  The EU sees inclusion of aviation in the EU ETS as a first step towards the ultimate goal of achieving 
a global solution to address the clim ate change impacts of internationa l aviation. It also considers 
that the EU ETS may serve as a model for the u se of emissions trading worldwide.  Indeed, the 
legislation commits the EU to continue to  seek an agreement on global measures to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions from aviation.  In th e light of any such agreement, the European 
Commission shall consider whether amendments  to the EU ETS legislation are necessary. 
 
Given the scale of the challenge to prevent climat e change, inclusion of aviation in the EU ETS is a 
proportionate and effective response. The EU scheme has  been designed in such as way so to be non-
discriminatory between aircraft operators, it can not  therefore be considered to adversely affect the 
operations of Indian airlines operating in Europe. 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 355 
 
 
 Question 12 
What are the labelling requirements for textiles, clot hing, and footwear in the EU? Is there a move to 
harmonise the labelling requirements with the US?   
Answer
 
Textiles: EU legislation on labelling is limited on fibre co mposition of products.  In particular, EU 
legislation requires that, textile products when be  marketed within the Co mmunity either before or 
during their industrial processing or at any of th e distribution stages have to include a labelling on 
fibre composition.  Apart from this EU legisla tion harmonises also definitions of names of fibres. 
There is no other labelling mandatory requirement fo r textiles (care labelling or origin are not 
compulsory).  Other information on labelling could be required only when the product has a very 
specific use linked to security.  There is no harmonisation with the US.  However, EC and US are cooperating within International 
Standards Organisation (as well as  with countries), on harmonisation issues (including textile 
names).  ISO has developed standards.  They are not  compulsory for everybody but they constitute a 
reference.    In addition ISO has developed, where conver gence is impossible, a list of fibre names 
correspondences.  
Footwear: EU legislation on footwear labelling refers only to the composition of the main parts of  
the footwear. As main parts are considered, the upp er, the lining and the sock, and the outer sole.  
Either pictograms or written indications may be chosen  The label must be visible at least on 1 shoe of the pair by printing, sticking, embossing or using 
attached labels  
The manufacturer is responsible for supplying the labe l and for its accuracy. If he is not established 
in the Community, the person who first places the footwear on the market is responsible. 
Here again there is no other compulsory requirements on labelling.  
 
Question 13 
As under Para 55 of EC report, "…….significant effo rts have been underway to remove the remaining 
regulatory and administrative obstacles to trade in services between Member States within the 
framework provided by the Directive on Services in th e Internal Market (the "Services Directive" No. 
2006/123/EC) adopted in December 2006 and other secto r-specific legislation and initiatives." Thus, 
the EC acknowledges that there are obsta cles in accessing its services markets.  
 
In light of above, does the EC is propose to rem ove obstacles to trade in services for its WTO trading 
partners. If yes, the concrete steps the EC proposes in  this regard. If not, why does the EC not want to 
remove obstacles to trade in services for the WTO Members?  
Answer
 
The integration of the European market is progres sive and existing obstacles are removed step by 
step. EU legislation intends to facilitate the prov ision of services between different Member States of 
the Community, and, to that extent, benefit also WTO trading partners since it increases the economic 
value of commitments under mode 3, as non-EU co mpanies established in the EU will fully benefit 
from the Services Directive just like EU companies.  
 
Question 14 
As under Para 108 part IV (page 132) of the Secret ariat report, "The low level of intra-trade in 
services can be partly explained by the remaini ng barriers, such as m onopolies that prevent the 
establishment of service providers from other Member  States (e.g. postal services or energy utilities), WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 356  
 
 and differences in regulation across Member States."  The footnote 148 to the Para talks about, "...... 
SMEs normally cannot afford the extra costs of engaging in cross-border activities."    How does the EC propose to ensure that cross-bor der trade of SME’s from other WTO Members is 
enhanced? 
 
Answer
 
Cross-border trade of SMEs from other WTO Me mbers will be enhanced both by the progressive 
integration of the European market and by the completion of the DDA, which would provide for an 
enhanced access to the European market since the EU  has presented a comprehensive offer in the 
services area.  Question 15 
Reference is invited to Para 113 part IV (page 134) of the Secretariat report. A period of more than 27 
months has elapsed since the consolidated EC-25 sch edule was negotiated and concluded. There is no 
clarity with regard to entry into force of th e revised schedule resulting from the GATS Article XXI 
(Modification of Schedules) negotiations.   
Can the EC inform when the sch edule will enter into force? 
 
Answer
 
The schedule will enter into force as soon as th e internal EC procedure will be finalised. 
So far, 14 EU Member States out of the 25 concerned  completed their national ratification procedures 
(Austria, Germany, Denmark, Hungary, Greece, La tvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, 
Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the UK). Subject to their respective constitutional requirem ents, those EU Member States, whose national 
ratification procedures are not yet completed, are doi ng their outmost to comple te such procedures as 
soon as possible. Additionally, also with a view  to further accelerate to national ratification 
procedures, the European Commission requested an opinion from the European Court of Justice, 
aimed at clarifying, among other issues, whether such national ratification by the EU Member States 
is really necessary.  All these extensive efforts by the EU Member States and by the European Commission are in line with 
the relevant provisions of the letters sent to the affected WTO member s, under which the EC 
endeavoured to accelerate the internal appr oval procedures as much as possible.   
 Question 16 
Reference is invited to Para 114 part IV (page 134)  of the Secretariat report. The mandate given by 
the European Council to the EC to negotia te trade agreements may be detailed. 
 
Is there difficulty being faced by foreign bank bran ches in starting their operations in the EC member 
states? In this regard details of the number of  foreign banks (other than EC member states  banks) as a 
percentage of all banks in the EC member states a nd the total assets of these foreign banks of the total 
assets of all banks in the EC may be provided. 
 
Answer
 
EU banking regulation is not harmonised on direct br anches of non-EU based credit institutions. It is 
regulated by each Member States separately.   The following are the only statistics we have of direct branches of non EU based credit institutions. 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 357 
 
 
 Table 10 
Number of branches of CIs from Eu countries and third countries 
 Number of branches of CIs from EU countries Number of branches of Cis from third countries 
 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 
Belgium 38 36 41 46 49 10 9 9 8 9 
Bulgaria n.a. 4 4 2 3 n.a. 2 2 2 2 
Czech Republic 8 9 12 13 14 1 0 0 0 0 
Denmark 16 16 17 17 18 2 2 2 3 4 
Germany 64 62 69 68 66 20 21 20 18 18 
Estonia 1 3 6 7 8 0 0 0 0 0 
Ireland 31 31 31 31 31 1 1 1 1 1 
Greece 14 19 19 20 22 6 4 4 4 5 
Spain 49 53 57 62 71 8 8 8 7 9 
France 52 55 55 59 64 28 27 26 25 24 
Italy 49 50 58 65 72 13 10 10 9 10 
Cyprus 5 4 4 4 9 19 19 18 17 16 
Latvia 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 
Lithuania 2 2 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 
Luxembourg 41 38 36 34 35 9 9 8 8 8 
Hungary 0 0 3 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 
Malta 0 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 
Netherlands 20 22 22 16 18 8 7 6 5 5 
Austria 18 18 25 25 26 0 0 1 1 1 
Poland 0 3 7 12 14 0 0 0 0 0 
Portugal 22 26 24 23 23 1 1 1 1 1 
Romania 7 6 5 6 10 1 1 1 1 0 
Slovenia 1 2 3 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 
Slovakia 3 3 5 7 10 0 0 0 0 0 
Finland 18 19 19 22 21 0 1 1 1 4 
Sweden 15 17 18 16 13 3 3 2 3 3 
United Kingdom 82 81 81 83 81 97 91 89 89 93 
MU 13 417 431 459 473 501 104 98 95 88 95 
EU 27 557 579 624 649 693 230 218 211 205 215 
 
Table II 
Total assets of branches of Cis from EU and third countries 
(EUR million) 
 Number of branches of CIs from EU countries Number of branches of Cis from third countries 
 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 
Belgium 25,909 29,225 29,348 32,080 40,456 12,928 11,901 20,235 30,103 49,320 
Bulgaria n.a. 741 736 * 1,237 n.a. * * * * 
Czech 
Republic 7,222 8,565 9,694 10,658 12,419 225 0 0 0 0 
Denmark 24,575 26,533 34,932 40,554 47,419 * * * 148 1,429 
Germany 67,391 69,962 79,512 105,634 137,189 20,464 23,257 23,834 23,228 24,402 
Estonia * 806 1,161 1,522 2,303 0 0 0 0 0 
Ireland 69,773 80,804 94,974 123,447 136,942 * * * * * 
Greece 12,769 22,634 28,0 89 31,287 36,200 6,383  394 400 471 643 
Spain 83,608 121,770 154,914 183,879 223,568 2,885 3,253 4,304 5,068 5,750 
France 99,927 110,545 133,932 118,653 132,949 11,351 13,196 12,025 12,523 15,277 
Italy 84,187 105,320 132,828 166,511 307,178 9,731 6,357 6,139 6,853 8,764 
Cyprus 929 476 1,044 733 5,089 2,602 2,798 3,275 3,284 5,632 
Latvia * * * 1,398 * 0 0 0 0 0 
Lithuania * * * * 1,904 * 0 0 0 0 
Luxembourg 89,884 108,821 128,504 111,420 125,036 5,116 5,902 16,973 19,721 20,287 
Hungary 0 0 112 1,210 1,730 0 0 0 0 0 
Malta 0 0 0 0 * * * * * * 
Netherlands 25,090 30,283 33,248 44,040 53,455 1,582 1,198 1,274 946 1,081 
Austria 3,363 4,298 6,340 8,285 10,339 0 0 * * * 
Poland 0 834 1,419 5,527 9,626 0 0 0 0 0 
Portugal 16,923 20,340 19,542 24,170 29,755 * * * * * 
Romania 1,098 1,900 2,560 2,910 3,475 * *  * 0 
Slovenia * * 522 * 242 0 0 0 0 0 
Slovakia 3,057 3,989 8,059 6,284 9,852 0 0 0 0 0 
Finland 13,030 14,364 12,668 13,611 14,941 0 * * * 343 
Sweden 33,403 43,788 55,034 65,115 72,256 66 111  1,552 4,089 
United 
Kingdom 1,344,239 1,542,638 1,810,942 2,026,621 2,392,061 1,121,055 1,156,323 1,447,318 1,620,137 1,874,677 
MU 13 595,062 718,681 854,421 963,127 1,248,250 70,738 65,764 85,558 99,251 126,152 
EU 27 2,010,932 2,350,438 2,782,159 3,217,403 3,810,592 1,199,802 1,231,576 1,547,483 1,734,366 2,025,848 
* Where the number of branches is less than three, the under lying data are not divulged for confidentiality reasons. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 358  
 
 Question 17 
As under Para 169 part IV (page 153) of the Secr etariat report the EC is working to remove 
unjustified regulatory restrictions in professional services.   
Has the EC identified these restrictions? If yes, the de tails may be provided. Further, is there any time 
period for completing this exercise. 
 
Answer
 
Directive 2006/123/EC ("Services Directive") ob liges EU Member States to evaluate certain 
restrictions that generally apply to regulated pr ofession. For example, Member States will have to 
evaluate whether requirements on numerus clausus or  fixed tariffs are justified by an overriding 
reason of general interest and proportionate.  Under the Services Directive, Me mber States shall also ensure that  restrictions to the exercise of 
multidisciplinary activities by professional services are justified and proportionate in order to 
guarantee compliance with the rules governing professional ethics and conduct and necessary to 
ensure independence and impartiality.  In addition, the Services Directive obliges EU Me mber States to remove all total prohibitions on 
commercial communications. The Services Directive also obliges Member States to ensure that 
professional rules on commercial communications are non-discriminatory, justified by an overriding reasons relating to the public interest and proportionate.   The Services Directive has to be implemen ted by Member States by 28 December 2009. 
 
Question 18 
There is a growing need for the free movement of workers across the EC to provide services; 
however, the different regimes for work permits in EU member states render the application process 
cumbersome and inefficient, which affects the services trade.   
Is the EC working to facilitate ser vices trade by addressing this issue? 
Answer
 
In coming months, the EC will partly address this issue.  
The Commission will indeed present in the comi ng months a proposal for a Directive on intra-
corporate transferees, in accordance with the December 2005 Commission Communication on a 
Policy Plan on Legal Migration (COM(2005)669), that foresaw the adoption between 2007 and 2009 
of five legislative proposals on labour immigration.  
The aim of the present Directive is in particular, to  facilitate intra-corporate transfers (ICT) of key 
personnel both to the EU and within the EU so as to  effectively and promptly responding to demands 
for managerial and qualified employees of branch es and subsidiaries of multinational companies by 
setting up transparent and harmonised  conditions of admission of this category of workers; by  
creating more attractive conditions of stay for ICTs and their family; and by promoting the efficient 
allocation and re-allocation of transferees between EU entities.  
 As a result, provision of services taking place in th is particular context of intra-corporate transfers 
will thus be facilitated. 
 
Question 19 
There are a number of Mode IV restrictions in th e EC. For instance, the requirement for 3-6 years of 
professional experience for contractual suppliers a nd independent professionals . Moreover, delays in 
awarding of Visas and differing regulations gove rning professional qualifi cations prevail across  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 359 
 
 
 Member States. For example, if a service provider from a Member State that has no requirement for a 
professional diploma wishes to become established in another Member State that does include such requirements, the service provider may not find  it easy to get the pr ofessional qualifications 
recognised. This creates barriers to trade.   
What steps is the EC taking to remove such restrictions?  
 
Answer
 
The EC does not agree that professional experience re quirements, per se, constitute barriers to trade.  
The EC also notes that visa issues falls outside the scope of GATS liberalisation and the Trade Policy 
Review. As to the recognition of professional qualifica tions, the EC Treaty provides that the European 
Community adopts rules on the recognition of prof essional qualifications to facilitate the free 
movement of persons. Accordingly, EU legislation (several directives) has been  introduced to ensure 
the mutual recognition of qualifications in all re gulated professions. However, EC directives on 
mutual recognition of diplomas only apply to EC nationals and the right to practise a regulated 
professional service in one Member State does not grant  the right to practise in another Member 
State. In order for third-country nationals to obt ain EC-wide recognition of their qualifications, it is 
necessary that a Mutual Recognition Agreement is negotiated.  
 Question 20 
Are the foreign bank branches required to have high er minimum retail deposit than EC member state 
bank branches? If yes, the reasons for the distinction may be provided. 
 
Answer
 
EU banking regulation is not harmonised on direct br anches of non-EU based credit institutions, it is 
regulated by each Member States separately. Hen ce no requirements exist for the minimum level of 
retail deposits at EU level. 
 
Question 21 
As per EC revised offer both CSS and IPs are subj ect to evaluation by the competent EC authorities 
on qualification criteria and whether these are equivalent for rendering of services in the EC.  
The reason for such a provision may be provided along-w ith the details of regulation in this regard, if 
any.   Answer
 
We consider that this issue will be better addres sed in the framework of services negotiations under 
the DDA rather in the context of Trade Policy Review. 
 
Question 22 
In the EC revised offer many of the EC Members,  have scheduled "unbound" their national treatment 
limitations with regard to ICTs, BVs, CSS and IPs.  
 
The reasons for the national treatment (NT) limita tions may be informed. Further, provisions of 
regulations in this re gard may be provided. 
 
Answer  
This issue, which is outside the scope of Trade Po licy Review, is to be addressed in the framework of 
services negotiations under the DDA.  
 Question 23 
It has been observed that EC imposes Economic Ne eds Test (ENT) on unclear basis on the entry of 
Foreign Service providers.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 360  
 
 What is the EC position on the application of ENTs? 
 
Answer
 
The EC does not consider that Economic Needs Te st for the entry of foreign service providers are 
applied on an unclear basis.  
 
Question 24 In the EC revised offer the market access (MA) re striction under CSS exists with regard to "The 
number of the persons covered by the service contract  shall not be larger than necessary to fulfill the 
contract, as it may be decided by the laws, regula tions and requirements of the European Community 
and the Member State where the service is supplied."   
Does the EC intend to remove this ENT limitation?  
 
Answer
 
This issue, which is outside the scope of Trade Po licy Review, is to be addressed in the framework of 
services negotiations under the DDA. 
 
Question 25 
In the EC revised offer the criteria for ENT is not clear as the commitments are subject to application 
of numerical ceiling (with modalities of app lication and level to be determined).  
 The reasons for the requirement that contract h as to be from a final consumer may be detailed. 
Answer
 
This issue, which is outside the scope of Trade Po licy Review, is to be addressed in the framework of 
services negotiations under the DDA. 
 
Question 26 
The EU Services Directive will benefit any non-EC entity that becomes an EC juridical person by virtue of establishment. However, non-EC nationa ls cannot enjoy benefits  of free movement under 
this Directive since it is limited to EC nationals. Thus, the foreign entity established in one of the EC 
member does not benefit for moveme nt of its personnel across other EC member states even after 
establishing in the EC.  
 
Does the EC agree that this is a violation of national treatment principle?  
 
Answer
 
As regards legal persons, entities established in the EC will fully benefit from Directive 2006/123/EC 
(Services Directive) as stated above. As regar ds physical persons, individuals not having the 
nationality of a EU Member State are not covered by the concept of service provider in the Services 
Directive. It must be stressed t hat free movement of services is a c oncept that applies within the EU, 
and the scope of such freedom is not comparable with that of mode 4. Hence, the application of the 
national treatment principle is not relevant.   
 
Question 27 
In the EC revised offer the MA restriction under CSS exists with regard to "The number of the 
persons covered by the service contract shall not be larger than necessary to fulfill the contract, as it 
may be decided by the laws, regulations and re quirements of the European Community and the 
Member State where the service is supplied." 
 
Is this a labor market test requirement? If yes, does the EC intend to remove this requirement?  
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 361 
 
 
 Answer  
This issue, which is outside the scope of Trade Po licy Review, is to be addressed in the framework of 
services negotiations under the DDA.  
 
Question 28 
Purchase/ownership of real estate is of importance to the construction sector, but several MA and NT limitations are imposed in different EC member states as per the EC revised offer. 
 
What are the reasons for the NT restrictions and do es the EC proposes to remove these restrictions in 
order to allow market access in the construction services sector? 
 
Answer
 
National Treatment restrictions and limitations on real estate exist in a few number of Member States. Such limitations are common to many WTO Membe rs. They can be justified on public policy grounds, 
such as the objective to avoid scarcity or excessi ve prices of land or real estate in areas where 
the needs of nationals for agriculture or housing are important.  
 
Question 29 What is the status of the discussions of the Blue Card scheme and when will it come into effect? Will 
UK, Ireland and Denmark also endorse the scheme? What professions are it expect ed to benefit? Will 
it comprise of EU Member-specific quotas, or quotas for any profession, or quotas for any specific 
country from where ‘skilled professionals’ are sourced?  If the need for a ‘highly skilled worker’ is felt 
in one EC member state can that worker have fre e mobility all over the EC member states once access 
is granted in one member state? 
Answer
 
The "Blue Card" Directive is currently being adopted . In any case, the scope of the future Directive 
would not be related to services trade commitments, and hence it falls outside the scope of the present 
Trade Policy Review. 
 
Question 30 
The telecom regulators in majority of the EU market s are often close to the dominant operator, which 
in many countries are the government owned Pub lic Sector Undertakings (PSU). A close nexus 
between regulator, operator and government leads to inefficient regulating, ‘crowding out’ of foreign 
telecom providers and delays in  enforcing consumer rights.  
 What is EC doing to create a level playing field for foreign telecom players?  Answer
 
Effective and independent national regulatory authorities are a prerequisite for ensuring fair and effective regulation of the electronic communications markets. It is therefore a basic requirement of 
the regulatory framework that national regulat ory authorities must be independent from any 
organisation providing electronic communicatio ns networks and services. Moreover, national 
regulatory authorities must be able to exercise their powers impartially and transparently. The 
Commission is not aware of systematic issues in th is regard. However, whenever it has considered 
that independence was not ensured, it has taken  enforcement steps against the Member State 
concerned. Four infringements proceedings are currently pending in this regard.     
 Each year, the Commission drafts and publishes a progress report on the single European electronic 
communications market. The 14
th Progress Report on the Single European Electronic Communication 
Market, which was released on 25 March 2009, presents the state of play in the telecoms market for 
2008 at EU level and for each Member State. The report can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/poli cy/ecomm/library/communications_reports/annualreports
/14th/index_en.htm.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 362  
 
 The section "Independence of national regulatory authorities" on page 50 of this Report provides a 
general overview of the Commission's enforcement initiatives in this area. 
 Furthermore, the package of proposals for the ref orm of the EU regulatory framework for electronic 
communications, which is currently in Second Read ing in the European Parliament and Council, 
includes a range of provisions d esigned to improve the level playing field for telecom operators, 
whatever their country of origin. These include provisions:   - Strengthening the independence (includi ng from government) of national regulatory 
 authorities as well as their enforcement powers; 
 - Clarifying the rules applicable to appeal s against decisions by national regulatory 
 authorities; 
 - Improving the quality and c onsistency of the national measures implementing the EU 
 rules, by establishing an i ndependent body of telecom regul ators, which will combine the 
 expertise and experience of all the nationa l regulators and provide advice to the 
 Commission and individual regulators in the performance of their tasks; 
 - Strengthening the mechanisms at Community  level for co-ordination and consultation on 
 the imposition of ex ante obligations at nati onal level, including enhanced powers for the 
 Commission to intervene when it considers that a measure proposed by a national 
 regulatory authority could create a barrier to the single market or be contrary to  Community law. 
 
Question 31 
The EU mandate deems the Research and Development (R&D) sector as mandatory for domestic job 
creation; as a result EU is hesitant in allowing fr ee interdisciplinary movement. Only 34 percent of 
researchers are non – EU. Also Indian researchers in EU face problems due to highly opaque and 
bureaucratic regulations (for getting permissions and clearances and also for getting finance and grant 
related to paper work). There are also admi nistrative limitations in mobility programmes.  
What is the EC position on this?   
Answer 
The EC does not agree with the statement that "researchers in EU face problems due to highly 
opaque and bureaucratic regulations.  
 Question 32 
Local service providers get a favourable tax treatme nt than Foreign Service providers in EU. For 
example, in some Member States the costs of professional training are tax-deductible only if the 
courses take place within the Member State. Sim ilarly, life insurance and additional insurance 
policies, pension fund and investment fund contracts can be offset against tax, only if concluded with 
local insurance companies. Authorisation for the re imbursement of medical costs incurred in another 
Member State is only granted by national aut horities under certain conditions, and this may 
discourage persons insured under social secur ity schemes from turning to service providers 
established in another Member State.  
 
What is the EC position on this non-harmonisation issue?  
Answer
 
While in the absence of harmonising measures at Community level direct taxation falls essentially 
within the competence of Member States, in the exercise of this  competence Member States must 
observe their EC Treaty obligations. Hence, they must  not discriminate on the basis of nationality or 
apply unjustified discriminatory rules imposing restrictions on the exercise of the EC Treaty freedoms (including, the free provision of  services). Thus for instance, and as confirmed by the European Court 
of Justice (ECJ) on numerous occasions, in objec tively comparable situations Member States may not  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 363 
 
 
 apply more burdensome rules to services furnished by service providers of other Member States than 
to services provided by domestic undertakings. In this regard the EC, by way of example, would like 
to draw India's attention to the following ECJ decisions: Case C-55/98, Vestergaard, of 28 October 1999 (professional training expenses) and Cases C-136/00, Danner, of 3 October 2002; C-422/01, Skandia/Ramstedt, of 26 June 2003; C-150/04, Commission v. Denmark, of 
30 January 2007; and C-552/04, Commission v. Belgium, of 5 July 2007 (pension insurance 
contributions). EC law takes precedence over conf licting national rules, and as provided for in 
Article 226 EC the European Commission has a very spec ific role in enforcing the provisions of the 
EC Treaty. Where the Commission becomes aware of an infringement of the EC Treaty freedoms by a 
Member State, it will request that Member State to bring its national legislation into line with its 
Community law obligations and if necessary will bring the matter before the ECJ. 
 As regard access to medical treatment abroad, Commun ity legislation in the field of social security 
does not harmonise the national social security schemes of the Member States but aims at coordinating this schemes in order to avoid th at migrant workers loose their social security 
protection. 
This coordination provisions a re contained in Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and its Implementing 
Regulation (EEC) No. 574/72. Persons  who are subject or have been subject to a legal social security 
scheme of a Member State are cov ered by these provisions. Regula tion (EC) No 859/2003 extended 
the personal scope of these Regulations to nationals  of third countries who are legally residing in the 
EU and who are in a cross-border situation. 
As regards access to health care in another Me mber State than the competent one, Article 22 of 
Regulation provides for two situations:  (1) A person who is covered by a legal sickness insurance scheme of a Member State is entitled 
during a temporary stay in another Member State, to health treatment which becomes necessary 
during its stay. In this situation, the health treatmen t is provided in accordance with the legislation of 
the Member State of stay (e.g. tariffs and reimbu rsement procedures) but will be reimbursed by the 
competent Member State. The Europe an Health Insurance Card (EHI C) certifies this entitlement. The 
EHIC can be used for temporary stays abroad fo r private and professional reason or when studying 
in another Member State. In this situation, no prior authorisatio n from the competent institution is required. 
 
(2) The second situation concerns the situati on where a person covered by a legal sickness 
insurance scheme of a Member State is going to an other Member State in order to obtain medical 
treatment. The coordination provisions require in su ch a situation that the person concerned obtains 
a prior authorisation from the competent sickness insurance institution. It is up to the sickness 
insurance institution to decide whether or not it will grant the prior authorisation. The coordination 
provisions however, stipulate in which cases su ch a prior authorisation cannot be refused, namely 
when the treatment requested is among the benefits pr ovided by its legislation but is not available 
within a time normally necessary with regard to the current medical state of the person concerned.  
 If such a prior agreement (form E-112) has been given, the treatment will be reimbursed by the 
competent institution in accordance with the tariffs applicable in the Member State where the 
treatment has been given. However, according to recent case-law of the Court of Justice (Vanbraekel, 
C-386/98), if the tariffs in the competent Member State are more favourable, the person concerned 
can apply for a supplementary reimbursement, which cannot be higher than the costs he actually 
paid. 
 
It should be mentioned that the C ourt of justice stated that this system of prior authorisation is 
contrary to the principle of freedom of services and goods as regards to non-hospital care (see cases  
Kohll (C-158/96) andDecker (C-120/95) of 28.4 .1998 and Smits and Peerbooms (C-157/99) and 
Vanbraeckel (C-368/98) du 12.7.2001). When non-ho spital treatment is given without prior WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 364  
 
 authorisation, the competent institu tion must reimburse the costs of this treatment according to its 
own tariffs.  Question 33 
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 doing away with these requi rements especially when the incorporation of 
company can ensure compliance of laws and regulations?  Answer
 
This issue, which is outside the scope of Trade Po licy Review, is to be addressed in the framework of 
services negotiations under the DDA. 
 
MALAYSIA  
 
Questions 
The final text for the EU’s directive on the Prom otion of the Use of Energy from Renewable Sources 
is expected to be published by early May 2009. It  is meant to further promote renewable energy by 
achieving, among others, 20% share of renewable en ergy sources from total energy consumption by 
2020. With reference to the proposed directive, Mala ysia would like to seek clarification as follows:  
Question 1 
On the typical and default values set by the European Commission (EC) on the qualifying criteria for 
biofuels, when is the possible date for the review of these values and how the EC plan to engage 
major biofuels producers in the review process.  Answer
 
The legislator decided to confer power on th e Commission to further substantiate certain 
requirements in the Directive concerning biofuels sustainability criteria. This power includes adding 
more typical and default values and updating such values if new scientific data becomes available. 
How often this will happen in practice is not yet decided and may also depend on how often new data 
would become available. 
 
The data that lie behind the typical and default valu es are in the independent hands of a consortium 
that includes the scientific experts of the Joint Research Center (J RC) of the Commission. The data 
are publicly available and are open for anyone to comment on and for experts to discuss them with the JRC. It should be noted that those experts ne ed however to continue to work independently and to 
progress their work as they find appropriate.  
 Note that the default values are only one way to  prove compliance with the criterion on greenhouse 
gas impact; another is to use actual values.  Question 2 
Article 17 of the said EU Directive specifies off-limit  areas for the sourcing of biofuels raw materials, 
i.e., high biodiversity land, high carbon stock areas and peatlands, developed after January 2008 are 
not eligible to meet EU targets and denial of fi nancial support. What is the rationale behind this 
provision and whether it contravenes World Trade Organisation (WTO) provisions? 
 
Answer
 
These are genuine environmental concerns as expressed  not just at EU level but at world level. 
Concerns and reservations as to the possibility of bi ofuels to deliver real environmental benefits 
unless produced and used in a sustainable way have b ecome an integral part of the overall debate on 
biofuels. Environmental sustainability is the sine  qua non condition for the implementation of the  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 365 
 
 
 future biofuel policy: Consumers in the Community  would find it morally unacceptable that their 
increased use of biofuels and bioliquids could have the effect of destroying biodiverse lands. It would 
be similarly unacceptable that the conversion of l and with high stocks of carbon (including peatland) 
would result in release of an amount of greenhouse gas emissions that would offset any positive impact of greenhouse gas emissions savi ngs of biofuels or bioliquids.  
 
The scheme is not an import ban. Biofuels which do not meet the criteria can still be imported and 
marketed in the EU. They will not, however, receive  subsidies from EU Member States, nor count 
towards the obligation that the EU has taken that each Member State will ensure that at least 10% of its energy for transport shall be renewable by 2020. A central objective in defining the sustainability 
criteria has been to avoid any potential implicit,  unintended discrimination against third countries. 
Since the regulatory effects associated with th e sustainability criteria are non-discriminatory, the 
Commission considers that the criteria adopted are cons istent with relevant international obligations 
and that, in any event, they are required as rela ting to and /or necessary for the conservation of 
exhaustible natural resources, the protection of human health, and, in certain circumstances, in order 
to prevent regulatory advantages being granted wh ere the production of biofuels causes offence to 
public morals (e.g. the destructi on of biodiverse rainforest). In this  respect we believe that the system 
is fully WTO compatible.  The date of January 2008 reflects the moment when the Commission published the proposal for 
Directive that contained such provisions. This wa s the first moment when economic operators could 
know what the future Directive would require from them.  
 Question 3 
German draft biofuel law and its consistency with the EU Directive on the Promotion of the Use of 
Energy from Renewable Sources? 
 
Answer 
This concerns the German draft law that was notified to the Commission in October 2008. The 
Commission informed the German authorities in January 2009 that they cannot adopt the draft law as it stands. 
 
PHILIPPINES
 
 
TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY SECTOR  
(2) AGRICULTURE AND RELATED SERVICES (iii) Fisheries 
 We note the following statement from WT/TPR/S/214, as follows: 
 
Question 1 
"MFN tariffs on fishery products average 10.9%, with rates ranging up to 26%.  The EC’s trade policy 
instruments on fishery products include WTO tariff quotas and autonomous (non-WTO) tariff quotas 
for the processing industry to  assist its competitiveness." 
 The degree of tariff disparity, with rates ranging fro m 0% to 26%, still remains to be a concern for the 
Philippines, particularly on canned tuna products .  How does the EU intend to address the still 
sizeable tariff disparity for canned tuna exports with only very few  suppliers who  remain to export 
the product at 24% (MFN) and 20.5% (GSP) while bulk  of the exports enjoy preferential or duty free 
access?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 366  
 
 Answer
 
Discussions on the reduction of tariffs for fish and fishery products are currently taking place in 
NAMA in the framework of DDA. The EU has acti vely promoted a horizontal mechanism which will 
ensure that tariff reductions are carried out across all products.   
In relation to canned tuna, imports are subject to  tariffs ranging from 20.5 to 24% due to the 
sensitivity of this product for the EU sector. Most EU imports of canned tuna  come from countries 
benefiting from either GSP or GSP+.   GSP offers preferential a ccess to imports into the EU market  from developing countries, allowing 
them to better participate in international trade. For the period 2009-2011, 16 beneficiary countries 
have qualified to receive the additio nal preferences offered under th e GSP+ incentive arrangement 
and these countries enjoy duty free-quota free access fo r all of their imports to the EC Any GSP+ 
beneficiary country must be considered "vulnerable" in terms of its size or the limited diversification 
in its exports. Poor diversification and dependence is defined as meani ng that the five largest sections 
of its GSP-covered imports to th e Community must rep resent more than 75% of its total GSP-covered 
imports. GSP-covered imports from that country must also represent less than 1% of total EU imports 
under GSP. 
 
(5) SERVICES 
 We note the following statement from WT/TPR/S/214, as follows: 
Question 2 
"Regulation of the banking system in the EC is based on the single European passport principle, and 
prudential supervision of banks is according to th e home-country control principle. Member States 
must not apply more favourable EC provisions to  foreign bank branches than those applied to 
branches of credit institutions with their head offi ce within the EC. However, the EC may agree to 
apply identical provisions to branches with th eir head office within our outside the EC." 
Could the EC explain how the rule on prudential s upervision of banks is a pplied with regard to 
mode 1 transactions involving commercial  banks established in non-EC countries. 
 
Answer
 
With regard to Mode 1, there is no EU-wide legisla tion applicable, so that each Member State can set 
its own national regulation in this respect, including  with regard to prudential supervision. However, 
please note that the commitments of most Member States in Mode 1 transac tions in banking sectors 
are limited to those set out in the Understanding on  Commitments in Financial Services, i.e., sub-
paragraphs (xv) and (xvi) of the Article 5 of the Annex on Financial Services. 
 
TRADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE 
(2) MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS 
 
We note the following statement from WT/TPR/S/214, as follows: 
 
Question 3 "The EC last notified  its import licensing system to the WTO in 2008.  Import licenses are required 
for products subject to quantitative restrictions , safeguard measures or for import monitoring and 
surveillance."  a) A review of the notification document G/LIC/N/3/EEC/11 did not include the EC Forest Law 
Enforcement Governance and Trade (FLEGT) licen sing schemes for imports of timber into the 
Community adopted in October 2008.  Could the EC inform if it intends to include this licensing scheme in its next notification under Article  7.3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 367 
 
 
 b) Could the EC also provide more informati on on the mechanics of the FLEGT Action Plan of 
Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA) with producer countries encountering problems on illegal 
logging and poor forest governance and how timber-exporting countries could avail of it? 
 
Answer  
a) Illegal logging is a concern in Europe. Th e EC wishes to discourage this activity by 
minimising the risk of consumers unknowingly pu rchasing illegally harvested timber or products 
derived from such timber. One of the main actions taken by the European Union in this field has been 
to invite interested countries supplying timber and timber products  to enter into FLEGT (Forest Law 
Enforcement Governance and Trade) Voluntary Part nership Agreements (VPAs) with the EU. 
Through these agreements,   those countries establis h schemes to verify the legality of their timber 
and shipments of timber and timber products to the EU are accompanied by FLEGT Licences 
attesting to their legality.  The EC and the third c ountries agree that only timber shipments from such 
countries accompanied by FLEGT licences will be allo wed to enter the EU, in accordance with the 
bilateral agreements concluded with those count ries. As the name suggests, these agreements are 
voluntary, although they become legally binding on both parties, and the above-mentioned regulation 
does not apply to countries that are not party to such  agreements. It is because of the voluntary nature 
of this licensing scheme that the EC is not inte nding to include this licensing scheme in its next 
notification under Article 7.3 of the Agreement on Import Licensing. 
  The question from Phillipines makes reference  to a Licensing Scheme adopted in October 
2008.  No licensing scheme was adopted on that date.   However the Commission did put forward a 
proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliame nt and of the Council laying down the obligations 
of operators who place timber and timber products on the market (COM(2008)644).  Under this proposal operators covered by this proposed Re gulation shall exercise due diligence through a system 
of measures and procedures (due diligence system) to  minimise the risk of placing illegally harvested 
timber and timber products. The due diligence system  will provide access to the sources and suppliers 
of the timber and timber products being placed on the Community market and to information as 
regards compliance with applicable legislation. The proposed Regulation does not introduce a standard nor any conditions for the marketing of tim ber. The obligations are on operators who place 
timber and timber products on the Community market.  The proposal gives opera tors the flexibility to 
choose the mechanisms to deliver the required result,  i.e. a low risk of placing illegally harvested 
timber and timber products. Legality is  defined on the basis of the legislation of the country of 
harvest, applicable to forest management, timber harvesting and timber market.  b)  In October 2003, the EU adopted the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan against illegal logging and rel ated trade. A key part of the Plan was a proposal 
for bilateral Voluntary Partn ership Agreements (VPA) between timber-producing countries and the 
EU. The VPAs aim to reinforce forest law en forcement and governance in partner countries.  
Accordingly, the Agreements are accompanied by capacity-building measures and involve an 
intensive process of stakeholder consultation at national level.     VPAs offer a mechanism for the countries to  provide an assurance to the EU market 
concerning the legality of exports to the EU of  their timber and timber products. Thus, under the 
VPAs, each partner country implements a legality a ssurance system, based on their forest-related 
legislation and a set of control procedures that jointly guarantee that timber exports to the EU have 
been legally produced.  A provision for independe nt monitoring of the system provides an additional 
assurance that the systems is operating correctly. Shi pments of timber for export to the EUare issued 
with FLEGT licences by the partner country, attesti ng to their legality.  Once the timber licensing 
scheme is operational, the EU will only allow imports  of timber products if accompanied by a FLEGT 
licence.  The range of forest product types co vered by the Agreement is set out in each VPA 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 368  
 
  A FLEGT VPA with Ghana was initialled in September 2008, while negotiations with 
Cameroon and Congo-Brazzaville are at an advanced stage. Liberia has recently started negotiations 
for a VPA. In the Asia-Pacific region, negotiatio ns are ongoing with Indonesia and Malaysia. Gabon 
and Central African Republic have recently also  formally requested FLEGT VPA negotiations.  
Interest in VPAs has been highest in countries wh ere trade in forest products with the EU is 
economically significant.  There is no set procedure laid down for entering into negotiations for a 
VPA.  In general an interested country has approa ched the Delegation of the European Commission 
and a process of informal dialogue then takes place,  including stakeholder workshops.  If, following 
the dialogue, the country wishes to enter into fo rmal negotiations, there is normally an exchange of 
letters or official joint announcement with the Eu ropean Commission, after which formal negotiations 
then begin.   
 For more information please refer to: http:// ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/illegal_logging.htm 
and http://ec.europa.eu/development/policies/9i nterventionareas/environment/forest/flegt_en.cfm 
 
NICARAGUA
 
 
INFORME DE LA SECRETARÍA WT/TPR/S/214 
 
III. POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS 
2) MEDIDAS QUE AFECTAN DIRECTAMENTE A LAS IMPORTACIONES 
i) Procedimientos aduaneros  
Question 1 
Exigen las autoridades aduaneras de  las CE los servicios de los agentes aduaneros? En caso negativo, 
cual sería la razón? 
 
Las empresas europeas que reciben algún tipo de subs idio o extensión de impuesto de cualquier tipo, 
pagan al fisco los impuestos deja dos de pagar por estas exenciones cuando realizan exportaciones a 
socios comerciales con los que tienen tratados comerciales? 
 
Answer
 
EC foresees the possibility to make use of a customs agent in direct  or indirect representation. 
However, there is no obligation to do so (see Ar t. 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No. 2913/92 of 12 
October 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code - OJ L302, 19.10.1992).  The question is not clear. Nicaragua should be mo re detailed with regards to the issue involved. 
 
ii) Aranceles  Question 2 
De acuerdo al párrafo 19, pag. 50, las CE han i ndicado que consolidaron todas sus líneas arancelarias, 
que el 98.6 por ciento de las líneas arancelarias tienen los mismos tipos aplicados (autónomos) y 
consolidados (convencionales).  P odrían las CE explicar qué es un de recho de aduana  autónomo y que 
es un derecho de aduana convencional?  En que se diferencia uno del otro? Y en qué situaciones 
aplican?  Cuáles de estos derechos aplican para ef ectos de las medidas antidumping, compensatorias y 
de salvaguardias?  Answer
 
Conventional duties are the ones that the EC app lies autonomously to all its trading partners. They 
coincide with WTO bindings as the EC applies MFN tariff treatment also to non-WTO trade partners. 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 369 
 
 
 vi) Prohibiciones, restricciones y licencias de importación 
 
Question 3 
En el párrafo 43 de la página 60,  las CE ha indicado que cuando se exige una fianza para la concesión 
de una licencia que abarque productos agropecuarios,  la fianza pierde total o parcialmente si la 
importación no se realiza o si solo se realiza parcia lmente. Sírvanse explicar a qué tipo de fianza se 
refieren?  Para efectos de las medidas de salvaguard ias, esta fianza aplica para  las medidas definitivas 
o provisionales?  Existe la retroactividad de la fi naza en caso que la medida de SG sea mayor en el 
caso de la definitiva con relación a la provisiona l?  Aplica para las medidas de Salvaguardias 
Globales, Bilaterales o para ambas?  Qué pasa si se exigió una finaza con las medidas de salvaguardia 
provisional, pero al final de la investigación no se determina que el aumento de las importaciones ha 
causado daño o amenaza de daño grave a la rama de producción nacional, se devuelve la fianza? 
 
Answer  
The issuing of a licence is subject to the lodging of a security which will be, totally or in part, 
forfeited if the import is not performed. The secu rity aims at guaranteeing the execution of the import 
obligation linked to the licence, and to making the system reliable. A safeguard measure may be 
implemented with a security system. 
 
Question 4 
Las licencias automáticas a las que se refieren las CE  en el párrafo 45, de la página 60, sírvanse 
explicar si la fianza aplica para las medidas de vi gilancia?  Cómo funciona para este caso?  Cómo 
controlan "mejor" las CE el origen de los producto s para efectos de las investigaciones de AD/AD o 
SG cuando existen o se permiten acumulaciones de or igen con terceros países?  En caso que sea a 
través de las normas de origen no preferenciales, có mo hacen con aquellos socios comerciales, que no 
tienen/aplican este tipo de reglas de origen?  Answer
 
It is impossible to give a detailed answer to this question within the time limits of this exercise. An 
answer to this question would imply a th orough analysis of the different measures. 
 
vii) Medidas comerciales especiales 
Medidas antidumping  
Question 5 
En cuanto a la aplicación de medidas de antidumping señaladas en el párrafo 53 de la página 63, qué 
parámetros utiliza la UE para "legitimar" la persone ría de una asociación, para efectos de considerar 
legítima la solicitud de inicio de una investigación? Es  decir, que es sujeto de derecho para proceder a 
la solicitud? Las leyes mercantiles exigen que  las asociaciones tengan personería jurídica? 
 
Answer
 
If a AD complaint is lodged by an association representing producers, the association should provide 
powers of attorney from the individual member pr oducers in which they authori se the association to 
lodge the complaint on their behalf. Furthermore, it should also prove that its articles of association 
allow it to legally represent its  members for the puropse of  lodging an AD complaint. 
 
b) Ayudas a la agricultura y la pesca 
 
Question 6 
Entre las intervenciones en les mercado de producto s agropecuarios de las CE mencionadas en el 
párrafo 129, página 89, se encuentra la ayuda comp ensatoria y la ayuda complementaria concedidas a 
regiones que hayan experimentado graves situaciones de mercado.  Podrían las CE brindar una definición de graves situaciones de mercados?  Cual es la base legal que respalda este concepto?  Qué WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 370  
 
 criterios y elementos de carácter cualitativos y cuantitativos considera la UE para determinar que 
existen graves situaciones de mercados, sobre todo en  las regiones de ultramar o periféricas que tiene 
la UE (outermost regions)?  
Answer
 
The Treaty establishing the European Community st ates in Article 299.2 that, taking account of the 
structural, social and economic situation of the French overseas departments, the Azores, Madeira 
and the Canary Islands ("the outermost regions"), which is compounded by their remoteness, 
insularity, small size, difficult topography and c limate, economic dependen ce on a few products, the 
permanence and combination of which severely restrain  their development, specific measures shall be 
taken in favour of these regions. This commitmen t is addressed by a specific regime of support for 
agriculture in the outermost regions, managed thr ough the POSEI programmes. As a result of the 
banana sector reform in the EC enforced as from 1.1. 2007, the large majority of the support to the EC 
banana producers was transferred to the POSEI envel ope. Therefore, since the beginning of 2007, the 
EC banana support serves the general objectives in fav our of the outermost regions, which are, by 
definition, affected by structural deficits. 
 viii) Reglamentos técnicos y otras prescripciones técnicas b) Cuestiones sanitarias y fitosanitarias 
 
Question 7 
En el párrafo 92, página 77, se menciona que "... Para  los "alimentos tradicionales" de terceros países, 
que se consideran nuevos alimentos con arreglo al actual Reglamento, se introducirán una evaluación 
y gestión de la seguridad basadas en un historial de uso alimentario seguro en el país de origen..."  
Sobre el tema de alimentos tradicionales a tercer os países, podría las CE aclarar cómo proceden 
cuando un Estado Miembro quiere comercializar al imentos tradicionales a lo interno de la 
comunidad? 
 
Answer
 
The EC are working on the proposal for Novel Foods w ith the European Parliament. As stated in the 
mentioned text, the new proposal which is currently  under consideration will take into account of 
historical records on safe food use in the country of  origin and other provisions to facilitate the 
approval of such novel foods. If the history of safe food use in the country of origin has been 
demonstrated, the food could be placed on the mark et on basis of a notification of the food business 
operator intending to market the f ood in the Member State concerned.  
 
ix) Contratación pública 
 
Question 8 
Podría la CE ofrecer mayor información respecto al método que, de conformi dad con el párrafo 101 
de la página 81, se está estableciendo para supervisar  la contratación pública transfronteriza, en que 
consiste dicho método?  Answer
 
As explained in the Secretariat' s report, identifying the actual nationality of a firm is extremely 
difficult as the structure of its capital is not always known and the potential nationality of the bidder 
does not necessarily reflect the trade flo w resulting from the contract award.  
 
The EC is currently considering how to implement the principles laid down in Regulation (EC) 
No 716/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on Community statistics 
on the structure and activity of foreign affiliat es  [Official Journal L 171 of 29.06.2007] and the 
Recommendations Manual on the Pr oduction of Foreign Affiliates Statistics in the area of public  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 371 
 
 
 procurement (please refer to the following website 
http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_O FFPUB/KS-RA-07-002/EN/KS-RA-07-002-EN.PDF). 
 
Question 9 
Podrían describir loes requisitos y/o procedimient os que debe cumplir los proveedores de un socio 
comercial de la CE (de un país que ha suscrito un acuerdo comercial) para participar en un proceso de 
licitación? Qué requisitos adicionales se exigen en  comparación con los solicitados a los oferentes 
nacionales?  En especial, podría brindar información respecto a:   - Para que un oferente o proveedor pueda par ticipar en los procesos de licitación de la 
  CE en general basta con satisfacer lo s requisitos que exija uno de sus Estados  
  miembros?  Si es así, están armonizados dichos requisitos?   - Es necesario que los oferentes se registren ante una autoridad pública? 
 
 - Los proveedores (no establecidos en un Esta do de las CE) que deseen participar en un 
proceso de licitación deben hacerlo a través de un re presentante legal local o que tenga domicilio en el 
Estado de que se trate? Favor aclarar a este respeto?  
Answer
 
In case of an international agreement on procuremen t with the EU (either the GPA or a bilateral 
agreement on procurement), suppliers from the countr ies in question enjoy the benefit of the national 
treatment and non-discrimination principles in EU tendering procedures. The refore, these suppliers 
are not subject to any specific additional requiremen t: in particular, they are neither requested to 
register before a public authority, nor required to establish a local presence to participate to a 
procurement procedure in the EU. 
 
In case there is no such an agreement on procuremen t with a third country or the agreement (GPA or 
a bilateral agreement) does not apply to the procur ement in question, suppliers from third countries 
do not benefit from any legal certainty as  they have no legal right to participate. 
 
4) MEDIDAS QUE AFECTAN A LA PRODUCCIÓN Y EL COMERCIO 
iv) Derechos de propiedad intelectual (DPI)  
Question 10 
De acuerdo al párrafo 166, página 101, el Reglamento (CE) No. 40/94 del Consejo y sus 
modificaciones permite la protección de marcas de fá brica o de comercio.  Esta norma comunitaria es 
aplicable a las marcas notoriamente conocidas e inco rpora las recomendaciones conjuntas de la OMPI 
sobre Protección de la Propiedad Industrial (M arcas Notoriamente Conocidas), Protección de las 
Marcas y Otros Derechos de Propiedad Indus trial en Internet y Licencias de Marcas? 
 
Answer
 
Community Trade Mark Regulation No 40/94 ('CTMR ') applies to well-known marks. It is in full 
compliance with both the relevant provisions of th e Paris Convention and those of TRIPS. As regards 
the key elements of substantive law it is also in  line with the WIPO Joint Recommendation on well-
known trade marks. In conformity with Article 16(3) TRIPS, extended protection beyond similarity of 
goods or services is, however, basically only affo rded to earlier registered trade marks with 
reputation. The CTMR does not contain provisions which address specifically the use of a sign on the 
Internet. The WIPO Joint Recomme ndation on the protection of marks on the Internet aims at 
facilitating the application of existing trade mark rel ated laws on the Internet. It falls under the 
exclusive competence of the European Court of Justice to interpret the EU legislation on trade marks. 
In this context the Court may consider the relevant  WIPO recommendation but is not obliged to do so. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 372  
 
 Regarding the WIPO Joint Recommendation on licences,  the CTMR is in full conformity with its 
provisions. 
 
Question 11 
Las CE ha indicado, en el párrafo 170, página 102 , que está evaluando el funcionamiento general de 
los sistemas de marcas de fábrica o de comercio comunitario y nacional para analizar sus efectos en 
los colectivos interesados con el fin de revisar el sistema y mejorar la cooperación entre la OAMI y 
las oficinas nacionales.  Sírvanse explicar los pr oblemas actuales que existen entre ambos sistemas? 
 
Answer
 
Trade mark registration in the Community has b een harmonised in Member States for more than 
15 years, with national and Community trade mark rights co-existing for over 10 years. Although the 
trade mark system shows clear su ccesses, it is time for an overall evaluation. The aim of this global 
evaluation is to identify potentia l areas for increasing the efficien cy, effectiveness and added value of 
this overall system to the benefit of  users and the society as a whole. The results shall serve as a basis 
for revising pertinent legislation to the exten t necessary and extending cooperation between the 
OHIM and national IP offices, in particular in the area of enforcement.  
 
Question 12 
En el párrafo 178 y 180, página 104, las CE indican  que la protección de las patentes se otorga en 
virtud de la revisión de 2007 del Convenio sobre la Patente Europea, de 1973.  El Convenio de la 
Patente Europea revisado, en vigor desde el 13 de diciembre de 2007, y que han simplificado 
significativamente la presentación de solicitudes de patentes, cómo el Tratado sobre el Derecho de 
Patentes.  Podría explicar cómo los Estados miembr os de la CE que no son parte del Tratado sobre el 
Derecho de Patentes del año 2000, aplican las di sposiciones sustantivas del mismo?  Además, se 
solicita explique la CE la prot ección de Software por patentes? 
 
Answer  
The Contracting States of the European Patent Convention (EPC) were required to align their 
national laws to the revised EPC pr ior to ratification. Member Stat es who have not ratified the Patent 
Law Treaty of 2000 are free to apply provisions pr ovided by this Treaty. Article 52 of the EPC 
excludes programs for computers from patentability. 
 
Question 13 
La creación de una patente comunitaria única sigue  siendo, según el párrafo 181, página 105, un 
objetivo fundamental, ya que haría más eficaz la lu cha contra la falsificación.  Sírvase explicar cómo 
avanza la propuesta del nuevo Reglamento de Pate nte Comunitaria y cómo han logrado superar los 
obstáculos Estados miembros de la CE? 
 
Answer  
The Community patent would provide uniform protec tion in all EU Member States. By contrast, 
European patents are only validated in a limite d number of Member States, which results in non-
uniform patent protection within the EU. The Community patent would therefore improve on the 
current situation by offering businesses protection fo r their inventions throug hout the Single Market 
and facilitating the enforcement of these patent ri ghts. Negotiations to reach a consensus on a 
Community patent are still underway. 
 
Question 14 
De acuerdo al párrafo 183, pag. 105, las CE a doptaron el Reglamento CE No 816/2006, sobre la 
concesión de licencias obligatorias sobre patentes relativas a la fabricación de productos farmacéuticos destinados a la exportación a países con problemas de salud pública.  Podrían explicar 
el alcance y contenido del mismo?   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 373 
 
 
 Answer  
Regulation 816/2006 creates a mechanism in lin e with the WTO General Council Decision of 
August 2003 so that companies in the EU can appl y for a licence to manufacture, without the 
authorisation of the patent holder, pharmaceutical products for export to countries in need of 
medicines and facing public health problems. Th ere is no specific restriction on the pharmaceutical 
products covered, although there is acknowledgement that they are required to address public health 
problems since that is the context of the Decision.  It represents an instrument that will allow the 
compulsory licensing procedure of the WTO decision to fit within the context of Member States’ 
national patent law and their compulsory licensi ng procedures. This is to give transparency and 
clarity for those companies opera ting within the EU’s internal market and wishing to apply for 
compulsory licences for export to count ries in need. Provided countries in need notify to the WTO the 
medicines they need, it would be up to generi c companies to decide to apply for licences to 
manufacture them. The regulation also foresees a role for non-governmental and international 
organisations as being potentially involved in any purchasing procedures and able to make requests 
on behalf of an importing country with that country’ s approval. Safety and efficacy of medicines for 
export can be certified through the EU’s scientific  opinion procedure, or equivalent national 
procedures. 
 
Question 15 
Las CE han indicado en el párrafo 190, página 108,  que los titulares del Derecho de Autor tienen el 
derecho exclusivo de prohibir la reproducción de su  obra, con algunas excepciones.  Explique cuáles 
son las excepciones permitidas y la penalización de la descarga de información en línea? 
 
Answer  
Article 5 of Directive 2001/29 on Copyright in th e Information Society lists one mandatory exception 
and 20 exceptions which the Member States may provide.  Article 8 of the same Directive deals with 
the sanctions and remedies for infringements to these rights and states that they shall be "effective, 
proportionate and dissuasive". The exact form of these sanctions is left to the Member States however 
but right-holders must be able to bring an action for damages and/or apply for an injunction etc. The text of the Directive can be found at:  http://eur-ex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Le xUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:3 2001L0029:EN:HTML. 
 
Question 16 
En la página 109, párrafo 194, las CE señala que aplicará un nuevo sistema de registro para vinos, a 
partir del 1ero de agosto de 2009, previsto en el Reglamento (CE) No. 479/2008.  Explique el 
contenido del Reglamento (CE) No 479/2008 y sus principales diferencias con la reglamentación 
anterior? 
 
Answer:
 
The draft implementing regulation establishes rules fo r the registration of new designations of origin 
and geographical indications. A registering procedu re is foreseen which implies an application for 
registration, an examination of the validity requirements, an opposition procedure and the 
registration. 
 This procedure did not exist before. 
 
Question 17 
De acuerdo al párrafo 195, pag. 109, las estadísticas de la CE señalan que les registro comunitario de 
productos agrícolas y alimenticios contiene más de 818 DOP e IGP, entre las que figura una denominación originaria de tercer país;  tal como es el caso de "Café de Colombia";  y en el registro 
de vinos y bebidas espirituosas contiene 2 127 de nominaciones (1 800 de vinos y 327 de bebidas 
espirituosas).  Explique el procedimiento de protección para las Denominaciones de Origen WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 374  
 
 Protegidas (DOP) y las Indicaciones Geográficas Protegidas (IGP) y el por qué las estadísticas 
muestran un número ínfimo de denominaciones de terceros países? Indique si el Reglamento (CE) No. 479/2008;  Reglamento (CE) No 110/2008 y el  Reglamento (CE) No 510/2006 aplica para la 
protección de Vinos Aromatizados o cuál es la normativa comunitaria para tal efecto? 
 Answer
 
- Registration and protection of geographical indi cations referring to agricultural products or 
 foodstuffs (both from third countries or origi nating from the member states of the European 
 Community) can be achieved through the subm ission of the application (by the producer 
 group or by the administration). The procedure is explained in Regulation (EC) No 510/2006, 
 especially in Article 5 as to the submission of an application and in articles 6 and 7 regarding 
 the examination and objection procedures.   The reason why there is only one registered geographical indication from a third country is 
 that till recently applications have not been numerous. Nevertheless presently, 13 
 applications from third countries are being examined by the Commission services.  
- This norm does not apply to aromatised drinks.  
IV. POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES 
2) AGRICULTURA Y ACTIVIDADES CONEXAS ii) Política agrícola común 
 
Question 18 
De acuerdo al párrafo 21, página 123, explique  cuales zonas de la CE podrían considerarse 
"desfavorecidas o ambientalmente sensibles"?  
Answer
 
Member States will have to define economically vulner able or environmentally sensitive areas as well 
as the vulnerable types of farmi ng eligible for support based on ob jective criteria. They may refer to 
the existing methods to defined less favoured a reas as provided for un der the rural development 
policy.  Currently, Member States have delimited areas wh ere agriculture is affected by disadvantages 
because of natural handicaps e.g. difficult climatic conditions, steep slopes in mountain areas, or low 
soil productivity in other less favoured areas. In those areas there is a risk of agricultural land 
abandonment. The delimitation of less fav oured areas is currently under review. 
 
5) Servicios 
 
Question 19 
Qué otros tipos de monopolios de los ya señalados impiden la prestación de los servicios a nivel 
comunitario?  
Answer
 
It is not entirely clear what monopolies the ques tion refers to. In general terms, the Commission can 
refer to the principles it applies when dealing with competition and monopolies. Generally, the 
antirust rules, in particular the rules on abuse of dominance, aim at maintaining a competitive market 
structure and at ultimately restricting private monopolies.   
If exclusive monopoly rights are granted by a Me mber State, the Member State government must 
make sure that no legislation will be enacted or maintained that would compel or induce such a company to violate the antitrust rules. (Art 86(1) EC Treaty). If an antitrust violation based on such a 
legislative measure occurs, th e target of Commission action is the Member State itself. 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 375 
 
 
 If a (private or state owned) company is entrus ted by a Member State with the operation of a service 
of general economic interest (i.e. public service) or  has a revenue producing monopoly, the EC Treaty 
says that competition rules are also applicable to them  to the extent that the application of these rules 
do not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. (Art 86 (2) 
of the EC treaty.)    
 
Finally, the EC Treaty also requires Member States to ensure that state monopolies are operated in a 
manner that does not discriminate against nationals of other Member States when they purchase or sell goods. Goods have been interpreted to include ser vices, so this provision is presumably also 
applicable to the services sector. 
 
iii) Servicios de telecomunicaciones y postales 
 
Question 20 
En relación al párrafo 141, página 173 y 174, menciona que: "el 13 de noviembre de 2007, la 
Comisión presentó el paquete de reformas de las telecomunicaciones, reconociendo, entre otras cosas, 
que el marco normativo de las telecomunicaciones no ha logrado hacer realidad todo su potencial y 
que es posible que quede rezagado;  sigue habiendo estrangulamientos, en particular en el segmento 
de la banda ancha;  y el espectro radioeléctrico  está infrautilizado.  El paquete está siendo debatido 
por el Parlamento Europeo y por los Estados Miembr os en el Consejo;  se espera que se convierta en 
ley a finales de 2009 y que entre en vigor a partir de 2010."  Podrían las CE explicar a qué se refieren 
con "estrangulamientos" y las principales modifi caciones al marco normativo que están teniendo 
lugar?  Explique las funciones del re gulador europeo de telecomunicaciones. 
 
Answer
 
1) Current bottlenecks for broadband d evelopment and underused spectrum: 
 
 As proven in the past 10 years since telecoms liberalisation, it is competition that brings 
about efficient levels of investment and wider choice to the benefit of consumers. Nonetheless, in the 
telecom sector duplication of infrastructures may not  always be possible or economically viable for a 
sufficient number of competitors. As a result in the current framework access to telecom networks is 
regulated because it has turned out to be a bottle neck to competition in retail markets for broadband. 
As a matter of fact, even if in the last decade c able and telecom infrastructures as such have to a 
certain extent produced some degree of competition at  the retail level, this form of infrastructure-
based competition had to be compleme nted by efficient access regulation. 
  Today the proposal for the review of the exi sting EU regulatory framework for electronic 
communications is intended to make sure that also  with the deployment of Next Generation Access 
networks (NGAs) competition bottlenecks can be removed, by securing adequate access for third 
party access seekers, a level playing field and the c onsistent application of the rules across all 27 
Member States, without jeopardizing incentives to invest  for any market players. In this context, the 
Commission is also working on a Recommendation on regulated access to NGAs, taking due account 
of the submissions and comments received during a period of open public consultation, but also of the 
most up-to-date technical studies and the most recen t developments in the market. The adoption of the 
final proposal is foreseen for this year. With the Recommendation on regulated access to NGAs the 
European Commission clearly aims at ensuring an appropriate balance be tween both investment and 
competition imperatives, and ultimately between in frastructure-based and service-based competition.  
As for spectrum management and un derused spectrum in Europe, fr agmentation of spectrum into 
specified services and technologies has led to much of the spectrum being currently used much less 
than its potential.  2) Principal amendments introduced in th e EU regulatory framework for electronic 
communications by the Telecom review: WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 376  
 
  The proposals tabled by the Commission in November 2007 (that are currently subject to 
Second Reading in the European Parliament and Co uncil) are designed to update and strengthen the 
EU regulatory framework for electronic communications in three main areas: 
 1. Providing for better regulation of th e EU electronic communications sector, by 
simplifying and streamlining the regulatory enviro nment. This is achieved inter alia by 
strengthening the independence and en forcement powers of national regulatory 
authorities and clarifying the principles applying to appeals against their decisions, as well as by updating the regulatory principles which guide them (for example to take fuller account of market developments such as in vestment in NGAs). With regard to radio 
spectrum, the proposals establish a strategi c policy regarding spectrum use in electronic 
communications. They also aim to reduce the ba rriers to the single market by establishing 
service and technology neutrality as the basic principles for spectrum regulation, thus 
enabling better services through a more flexi ble use. In addition the coordinated 
introduction of tradability in specific sp ectrum bands can be adopted on an EU-wide 
basis. 
 2. Facilitating the completion of the single market for electronic communications by 
strengthening the tools available to ensure c onsistency in the application of the rules 
across the EU. This is done in particular  through the establishment of an independent 
body of regulators in electronic communica tions, which will combine the knowledge and 
experience of the national regulators and provide expert advice to the Commission and 
individual national regulatory authorities where needed. The co-ordination and consultation mechanisms applicable to the im position of ex ante regulatory obligations 
are also strengthened, for example by conferring additional powers on the Commission to address cases where national measures would create a barrier to the single market. 
 
3. Enhancing consumer protec tion and strengthening user rights, by improving the 
security of electronic communications and u sers' privacy, by making number portability 
speedier and more efficient, and by promoti ng a high quality of service and unobstructed 
access to digital and online content. The ref orm proposals are also designed to ensure 
that users with disabilities, elderly users and  people with special needs have better access 
to electronic communications services. 
 
3) Main functions/duties of the new European body:   The European institutions have reached a po litical agreement on the creation of a "Body of 
European Regulators for electronic communications (BEREC)", composed of the national regulators 
from the 27 Member States of the European Union. This Body will give expert advice to the European Commission and the national regulators with on the full range of their responsibilities under the EU 
regulatory framework for electronic communicatio ns. BEREC would, in particular, develop and 
disseminate best practice, provide assistance to national regulators, deliver opinions on aspects 
where European consistency is needed and be a forum for reflection, debate and advice for the 
European institutions with the objective of d eveloping further the European internal market in 
electronic communications networks and services.    The Regulation setting up BEREC is part of  the European Commission's proposals which 
were adopted in November 2007 and are currently bei ng negotiated in the European Parliament and 
in the Council. 
 Question 21 
En relación al párrafo 144, página 174, menciona  que le 20 de febrero de 2008, el Parlamento 
Europeo y el Consejo adoptaron la Directiva relativ a a la plena realización del mercado interior de  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 377 
 
 
 servicios postales comunitarios.  Establecía el 31 de  diciembre de 2010 como fecha definitiva para la 
apertura total del mercado interior , con la posibilidad de que algunos Estados miembros la aplacen un 
máximo de dos años.  La Directiva exige a los Es tados miembros que sigan garantizando el servicio 
universal a todos los clientes, incluida la recogida y entrega de correo al menos cinco días a la semana 
a precios asequibles en todo el territorio.  Asimis mo, refuerza la protección al consumidor y amplía 
las funciones de las autoridades nacionales de regl amentación independientes."  En base a lo antes 
expuesto, quisiéramos saber que si aparte de la prórroga de un máximo de  dos años, para algunos 
Estados miembros, no se existe al guna otra que retarde la apertu ra total del mercado interior? 
 Cuando hablan de "Reforzar la protección al consum idor y amplía las funciones de las autoridades 
nacionales de reglamentación independientes" se  podría interpretar como un endurecimiento o 
creación de nuevas barreras arancelarias?  
Answer
 
No delays are expected in the transposition of the third Postal Directive. All 27 Member States have 
to transpose all requirements of Directive 2008/6/ EC, and notably open fully their postal markets at 
the date(s) fixed in article 2&3. There are no provisions that would allow Member States to differ from requirements of Directive 2002/39/EC.  Article 22 of the Directive clarifies the role of national regulatory authorities. Increasing their power 
can certainly not be seen as a barrier to entry, but instead as the reinforcement of a crucial tool to 
monitor potential entry barriers or anti competitive be haviours that would deprive users of the benefit 
of a dynamic, efficient and open market. The new Di rective adds also to consumer protection by 
requiring all operators within the universal service  area to report on the handling of consumer 
complaints (article 19), which will contribute to a better information and service to consumers. This 
measure is not expected to prevent ent ry and will enhance consumer protection. 
 
vi) Servicios profesionales 
 
Question 22 
En el párrafo 169, página 183, afirman que hay dife rencias de un Estado miembro a otro en lo que se 
refiere a la regulación de los servicios profesionales, así como de una profesión a otra.  Además, el 
subsector se caracteriza por los elevados niveles de reglamentación restrictiva, por ejemplo en lo que 
se refiere a las licencias (por ejemplo, prescripciones sobre la entrada y existencia de funciones reservadas) y las normas de conducta, incluida la fijación de precios por las asociaciones de competencia, está examinando el marco normativo actual del sub-sector (fijado a menudo por los gobiernos nacionales) para eliminar las restricci ones reglamentarias injus tificadas".  Quisiéramos 
conocer algunas de las restricciones reglamentarias in justificadas, que se continúan aplicando por los 
países Miembros de la CE?  Agradeceríamos si pudiesen señalar cada restricción por sector o sub-
sector de servicios, según su aplicación, de acuerdo al país que la aplique?  
Answer
 
Directive 2006/123/EC ("Services Directive") has to be implemented by Member States by 
28 December 2009. National regulation governing m any regulated professions is currently being 
evaluated by Member State in the context of the implementation of the Servi ces Directive in order to 
ensure its compliance with this norm. It obliges EU Member States to evaluate certain restrictions that generally apply to regulated profession. For example, Member States will have to evaluate whether requirements on numerus 
clausus or fixed tariffs are justified by an o verriding reason of general interest and proportionate. 
 
Under the Services Directive, Me mber States shall also ensure that  restrictions to the exercise of 
multidisciplinary activities by professional services are justified and proportionate in order to WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 378  
 
 guarantee compliance with the rules governing professional ethics and conduct and necessary to 
ensure independence and impartiality. 
 
In addition, the Services Directive obliges EU Me mber States to remove all total prohibitions on 
commercial communications. The Services Directive also obliges Member States to ensure that 
professional rules on commercial communications are non-discriminatory, justified by an overriding 
reasons relating to the public interest and proportionate.  
 
Question 23 
En el párrafo 170, página 183 y 184, relativo a:  "Para los demás modos de suministro se han 
especificado determinadas limitaciones al acceso a los mercados y el trato nacional."  Deseamos 
conocer los requisitos esenciales para ejercer la profesión jurídica en la CE en base a Acceso a 
Mercado y Trato Nacional?  
Answer
 
All limitations to market access and national treatm ent in the sector for which commitments have 
been taken are to be defined in  the EC schedule of commitments. 
 
Question 24 
En materia del Derecho de Competencia cómo considera la UE los subsidios otorgados al sector 
agrícola, distorsionan o no la competencia? 
 
Answer  
The Commission assesses the compatibility of State ai ds in the agricultural sector on the basis of 
Articles 87 and 88 EC Treaty. Thus only aids wh ich compensate for damages caused by natural 
disasters/exceptional occurrences or aids which facilitate the development of certain economic 
activities or of certain economic areas, without adversely affecting trading conditions to an extent 
contrary to the common interest, are authorised. 
 
Question 25 
La UE otorga derechos de explotación exclusiva a empresas públicas? Si es así, planea dejar de 
hacerlo en el futuro? 
 
Answer  
The EC does not confer the status of a company with  special or exclusive rights to any enterprise, in 
principle this is within the competence of Memb er States. Over the reporti ng period, Member States 
have not created or extended any state-owned enterprises with monopolies or exclusive rights. 
 
Question 26 
Cual es la dirección electrónica precisa donde puede identificarse esta información? 
 
Answer  
See reply to question 25.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 379 
 
 
 OUTSTANDING REPLIES TO LATE ADV ANCED AND FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS 
 
 
GUATEMALA  
 
INFORME DE GOBIERNO 
i) EVOLUCIÓN DEL MERCADO IN TERIOR Y DE LOS ELEMENTOS 
 PRINCIPALES DE POLÍTICA GENERAL   
 
Question 1 
Párrafo 12 "En enero de 2008 se adoptó la Decisión relativa a un entorno sin soporte papel en las 
aduanas y el comercio, la llamada "Decisión sobr e las aduanas electrónicas", que tiene por objeto el 
establecimiento de sistemas aduaneros electrónicos seguros e inter-operativos para el intercambio de 
datos, con el fin de mejorar y facilitar los procedimientos aduaneros para 2014." 
 
¿Podría la CE explicar de qué manera se manejará el tema de la información que tiene garantía de 
confidencialidad? 
 
Answer  
The eCustoms Decision already foresees in Article 3 paragraph 2 that: "Any disclosure or communication of data shall fully comply with pr evailing data protection prov isions, in particular 
Directive 95/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 October 1995 on the 
protection of individuals with regard to the pro cessing of personal data and on the free movement of 
such data and Regulation (EC) No. 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with  regard to the processing of personal data by 
the Community institutions and bodies and on  the free movement of such data."  
As such, all IT systems must be build in full respect of the data protection legislation and all 
exchanges must respect the principles of data protection. 
 
As to the Modernised Customs Code (MCC: Regul ation (EC) No. 450/2008) mentioned in the quoted 
paragraph 12 of the EC Government Report, its Artic le 6 also deals  with 'data protection'  and 
provides for in particular that:  Any information acquired by the customs authorities in  the course of performing their duties which is 
by nature confidential  or which is provided on a confidential basis shall be  covered by the obligation 
of professional secrecy. Except as provided for unde r Article 26(2) [MCC provisions concerning co-
operation between authorities in the framework of cu stoms controls and where necessary to minimise 
risks and combat fraud] such information shall not be disclosed by the competent authorities without 
the express permission of the person or authority that provided it. (…) 
 
The disclosure or communication of information shall take place in full compliance with data-
protection provisions in force.  
Question 2 Párrafo 13. "...En junio de 2008 se adoptó la "Ley de  Pequeñas Empresas" para Europa, en la que se 
trata de situar las necesidades de las PYME en el primer plano de la política comunitaria.  Se basa en 
el principio "piensa en pequeño primero" en la formulación de las políticas y apoya el crecimiento de 
las PYME. 
 ¿Podría la CE ofrecer más detalles respecto a l as políticas y apoyos que se han brindado en pro del 
crecimiento de las PYME? WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 380  
 
 Answer
 
The European Union has limited competences in m any policy areas which directly affect SMEs. 
However the Commission plays a key role by in fluencing MS action, monitoring progress in EU 
policy at EU level, in particular through the Gr owth and Jobs strategy, and contributing to the 
exchange of good practices (through conferences, datab ases or initiatives such as the European 
Enterprise Awards that promotes entrepreneurial initiatives).  The "Small Business Act" for Europe 
(SBA) is the most recent and major European Commi ssion initiative in favour of SMEs. It includes a 
set of 10 politically binding principles and a packa ge of concrete measures aimed at improving the 
overall policy approach towards ent repreneurship, anchoring the "Think Small First" principle in all 
policy-making from regulation to public service and promoting SMEs growth (see more details on: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/en trepreneurship/sba_en.htm). Th e proposed measures include both 
legislative and not legislative initiatives. The legislative proposals included the General Block Exemption Regulation on state aids, the proposal fo r the Statute for a European Private Company, the 
proposal on reduced VAT rates for locally supplied services, including labour intensive services, the 
proposal for simplifying rules on VAT invoicing and the proposal for the amendment to the late 
payment directive. 
 On its side the not legislative initiatives focus among others on:  
• Making legislation more SME friendly thanks to the "SME test" and specific 
measures for them (exemptions, longer transition period, simplified requirements, 
dedicated help desks) 
• Boosting SME chances of winning public proc urements (code of best practices) 
• Encouraging exchanges among young entrepreneurs and apprentices (Erasmus for 
young entrepreneurs) 
• Improving the access to mezzanine finance and micro-credits 
• Improving the access to skills and especially to e-skills tools. 
• Promoting the access to national resea rch programmes and transnational research. 
 
The complete list of the proposed measures and the updat ed follow up of the actions to be taken at EU 
level are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrep reneurship/sba_implementation.htm 
 
Question 3 
Párrafo 15. " En noviembre de 2007 se presentó un Plan estratégico de tecnología energética con el fin 
de acelerar el desarrollo y la aplicación de tec nologías energéticas con baja emisión de carbono." 
 Con relación al Plan Estratégico de Tecnología, ¿Podría la CE indicar si este Plan ya fue formalmente 
adoptado? ¿Podría la CE detallar los incentivos o modalidades que se contemplan para el desarrollo y 
la aplicación de tecnologías energéticas con baja em isión de carbono? Adicionalmente, ¿Podría la CE 
indicar si el Plan contempla medidas para estimular la inversión en I+D?  De ser el caso, ¿Quiénes son 
los principales beneficiarios de estos incentivos? Finalmente, agradeceríamos que la CE indique las 
acciones y estrategias contempladas para una efectiva transferencia de tecnología. 
 
Answer
 
The SET-Plan was adopted at the end of 2007and aims to focus Community R&D in the energy sector 
in order to achieve the 20-20-20 (20% renew ables, 20% reduction in greenhouse gases, 20% 
improvement in energy efficiency) objectives by 2020.  It targets both industry and research institutes.  
Work is focussed in European Industrial Initiati ves by sector, and research institutes are brought 
together in the European Energy R esearch Alliance.  With these me chanisms it is anticipated that 
technology transfer will be maximised.  It's main strength is that the Steering Group of member states agrees priorities, and in this way funding is channell ed to those technologies which promise the best 
results in the timescale   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 381 
 
 
 Question 4 
En el párrafo 35 la CE indica: " las CE tratan de  facilitar la protección de las indicaciones geográficas 
mediante el establecimiento de un registro multilateral significativo (...) ".  Más adelante, en el párrafo 
74 (Comercio y Desarrollo), la CE afirma que "(...)  las propuestas de las CE en todas las esferas de 
negociación se ha atendido sistemáticamente al as pecto del desarrollo y, frecuentemente, se han 
introducido disposiciones específicas relativas al trato especial y diferenciado". 
 ¿Podría la CE indicar en qué parte de su propuest a para la negociación de un Registro Multilateral de 
Vinos y Bebidas espirituosas se introducen disposic iones específicas relativas al trato especial y 
diferenciado? ¿Podría la CE explicar de qué ma nera estas disposiciones específicas ofrecen una 
flexibilidad apropiada que responda a las necesi dades y problemas especiales de los países en 
desarrollo? 
 
Answer
 
In the context of the DDA negotiations, the EC is one of the co-sponsors of Communication 
TN/C/W/52. This Communication contains a prop osal to agree at Ministerial level on the key 
parameters of TRIPS related issues, covering the so-called Register, GI Extension and TRIPS 
disclosure requirement. This Communication notably states that "Special and Differential treatment 
shall be an integral part of negotiations in th e three areas above, as well as special measures in 
favour of developing countries and in particular least-developed countries." Accordingly, the EC is of 
the view that discussions on special and differential treatment should be an integral part of post-
Modalities negotiations. This con firms the importance that the EC attaches to the development 
dimension of the Round, which is also taken in to account in the Extension part and the TRIPS 
disclosure requirement part of Communication TN/C/W/52. 
 
3) CREACIÓN DE UN ENTORNO PROPICIO PARA EL COMERCIO 
Protección de los derechos de propiedad intelectual  
Question 5 
En el párrafo 45 se menciona información acerca de  la Comunicación de 2007 sobre el sistema de 
patentes, en la que se establecía el modo de avanzar hacia la adopción de una patente comunitaria y un 
sistema jurisdiccional integrado para las patentes. 
 
¿Podría la CE indicar en qué consiste el sistema jurisdiccional integrado para las patentes y cómo 
opera este sistema?  Answer
 
The 2007 Communication "Enhancing the patent system " in Europe discussed ways forward towards 
an integrated jurisdictional system for patents in the single market with a view to revitalising the 
debate on the patent system in Europe and encour aging Member States to work towards consensus 
and real progress on this issue. Since April 2007, discussions in the Council have taken place, 
resulting in a draft Agreement and Statute on a European and Community Patents Court being 
produced by the Council Presidency. Member States are yet to reach a political agreement on the 
features and functioning of the integrated jurisdictional system. 
 
Question 6 
En el Párrafo 47, la CE indica que : "En consonancia con la  nueva estrategia mencionada supra, las CE 
negocian actualmente una propuesta de  Acuerdo Comercial de Lucha c ontra la Falsificación" .  El 
objetivo de ese acuerdo es establecer un marco inte rnacional de alto nivel que propicie una mayor 
observancia de los DPI.  Ese objetivo se persigue  con los tres componentes principales del acuerdo, a 
saber:  i) cooperación internacional;  ii) prácticas para garantizar la observancia;  y iii) marco jurídico. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 382  
 
 ¿Podría la CE indicar con qué otros países y bajo  qué foro se encuentra negociando la propuesta de 
Acuerdo Comercial de Lucha contra la Falsific ación? ¿Podría la CE indicar qué prácticas se 
contemplan para garantizar la ob servancia? Adicionalmente, ¿Podría la  CE indicar de qué manera se 
abordan o qué soluciones  se contemplan para hacer frente a las limitaciones y necesidades 
particulares de los países en desarrollo? 
 
Answer
 
The current negotiating parties of ACTA are a mi x of developed and emerging economies: Australia, 
Canada, the EU, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Singapore, Switzerland and the US. 
ACTA is being negotiated outside of the framew ork of any IPR international organisation. 
 The EU expects that other emerging economies, wh ere IPR enforcement could be improved will sign 
up to the global pact. Countries which are not par t of the negotiations and who will not sign the 
agreement will of course not be bound by the agreement.  ACTA is not intended to isolate countries or 
point the finger at their enforcement efforts. The countries involved in  this initiative share a particular 
vision of a path to stronger enforcement to de al with the challenges of piracy and counterfeiting 
today. This is an inclusive vision which we hope more countries will embrace when they feel the time 
is right.  ACTA partners are discussing how to address the con cerns of those developing countries that have 
limited resources. Like in other chapters, there are no definitive proposals so far, but issues such as 
improved co-ordination and use of technical assistance are on the table.  
  INFORME DE LA SECRETARÍA 
I. OBSERVACIONES RECAPITULATIVAS 
 Question 7 
¿Podría la CE explicar la forma en que se administra la aplicación de los contingentes arancelarios? 
¿Existe algún control interno para evitar que un c ontingente arancelario específico sea utilizado 
únicamente por un país miembro?  
 Answer
 
There are two kinds of quotas:   - Quotas managed by DG TAXUD, called "first come, first served" in which the  
  Commission allocates the amounts as far as  the requests arrive. When the quota is 
  exhausted, a prorate of the reminded am ount is done between the operators who  
  request the grant of the quota that day. So, in case one operato r requested the full 
  quota volume during the first validity day and there is not any other request, he will   get the full volume.  - In quotas under licences managed by DG AGRI, there is a seven to ten days period 
  during which the requests are examined. If these request represent a volume higher 
  that the quota, there is a prorate. 
 
POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS I
NTRODUCCIÓN  
 
Question 8 
En el párrafo 2 se indica que: "En la CE se aplican impuestos especiales de consumo a determinados 
productos de importación y producidos localmente, por  ejemplo el alcohol y las bebidas alcohólicas, 
el tabaco elaborado y los combustibles;  los tipos de estos impuestos no están armonizados".  
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 383 
 
 
 ¿Podría la CE referir la cantidad en que oscilan dic hos impuestos? ¿Podría la CE  explicar la razón por 
la cual los mismos no están armonizados?  
Answer
 
The detail of the different duty rates applied for th e 5 product categories in all 27 Member States, and 
graphs that demonstrate the degree to which the rates oscillate, can be found on the internet at 
http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/resources/ documents/taxation/excise_duties/alcoholic_beverage
s/rates/excise_duties-part_I_alcohol-en.pdf.  In terms of why the rates differ, there are a range  of different attitudes and policies towards alcohol 
taxation within the Member States of the EU. C onsequently, at the time Directive 92/84/EEC was 
adopted a system was introduced that prescribed cert ain minimum rates which need to be complied 
with, but otherwise left discretion to the Member St ates as to the exact rates to be applied.    
 
M
EDIDAS QUE AFECTAN DIRECTAMENTE A LAS IMPORTACIONES  
v) Valoración en aduana y normas de origen 
b) Normas de origen. En el párrafo 36 se i ndica que las CE aplican normas de origen 
 preferenciales y no preferenciales.  Question 9 
¿Podría la CE detallar cuál es el procedimientos a duanero para la aplicación de las reglas de origen no 
preferenciales y qué tipo de documento sirve de respaldo para amparar dichas normas? 
  
Answer
 
The EC's non preferential rules of origin are applie d for the release for free circulation of goods 
subject to the trade policy measures referred to in Article 1 paragraph 2 of the WTO Agreement on 
Rules of Origin (anti-dumping and countervaili ng duties; safeguard measures; origin marking 
requirements; quantitative restrictions and tariff quota s) as well as for government procurement and 
trade statistics.  Except for a limited number of cases (some agricu ltural or steel products, textiles) there is no 
generalised obligation to present a cer tificate or other proof of origin. 
 
PERU
 
 
Question 1 
Con relación al párrafo 18 del informe elaborado por la Secretaria: ¿Podrían las CE dar mayor 
información sobre el plan de acción de las CE para la  eficiencia energética con el fin de ahorrar el 20 
por ciento de su consumo de energía para 2020?  
Answer
 
The EU's specific energy efficiency policy has the following main pillars: (1) the general policy 
framework and the actions and measures of the Energy Efficiency Action Plan, (2) the national 
energy efficiency action plans (the NEEAPs) based on the framework Directive on Energy Services; 
(3) the legal framework for the most important consumption sector, buildi ngs, and energy consuming 
products; (4) supportive policy instruments for info rmation and networking like the Covenant of 
Mayors and Sustainable Energy Europe; (5) and int ernational collaboration on energy efficiency.  
The European Energy Efficiency Action Plan. 
 
With the Green Paper on energy efficiency, the Commission initiated a debate on efficient ways of 
using energy. The potential to save 20% of primar y energy consumption by 2020 in a cost-effective 
way was recognised. To achieve th is, a comprehensive European Ac tion Plan for energy efficiency 
(EEAP) was developed and adopted in 2006. The objective of the EEAP is to mobilize policy makers WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 384  
 
 at all levels of government and market actors alike,  to make buildings, appliances, means of transport  
and energy systems more energy efficient.
77 It identifies six key areas w ith the highest potential for 
energy saving and it proposes 85 actions and meas ures to be taken at EU and national level.78 Among 
them, ten priority actions have been id entified and all of these have advanced well.79 The 
implementation of the Action Plan is ongoing and should be completed by 2012. One third of the 
actions have already been completed but the rem ainder still need further commitment and willingness 
to take energy efficiency forward.  Today, the EEAP provides an overall framework for a wi de range of energy efficiency measures at the 
European level. The European Council has as ked the Commission to assess the current 
implementation status of the Plan. This work is continuously ongoing. The Commission will evaluate 
the EEAP in 2009 and prepare a revised and more am bitious Action Plan, as requested by the 
European Council last June. The starting points should be the saving potentials and the cost-
effectiveness of the policy tools. The aim is to  create a truly European policy environment and a 
market for energy efficiency that brings tangible energy savings.  
 
The revised Plan will build on curren t policies, but energy efficiency must become fully integrated 
into the broader energy policy, in particular the EU Energy and Climate Package with its dynamic 
CO
2 and renewable energy policies. The EEAP will remain complementary to the Emission Trading 
Scheme. The objectives may possibly be more dem anding and more precisely fixed for 2020, but also 
for the longer term e.g. 2030 and 2050. A pre-co ndition is that a commonly agreed verification or 
measurement system exists.  
 The Plan should focus on key energy consumptio n sectors and on energy supply and transmission. 
The emphasis on the building sector will remain: as more people are living in cities, the latter present a natural opportunity for increased efficiency. Cities also provide possibilities to enhance more 
efficient network-based heating and cooling system s, more efficient urban transport and the use of 
electric cars. The Covenant of Mayo rs and similar city networks are crucial to realize the ambitions. 
In that respect, the Commission will cooperate with international financing institutions and Member 
States to develop standard energy efficien cy projects based on best practice.  
 With 23% of total CO
2 emissions coming from road transport80, the reduction of vehicles energy 
intensity and emissions is a major challe nge. The revised EEAP should bring a new focus on 
transport, e.g. through more availability of  consumer information on fuel economy and CO 2 emissions 
when purchasing a new passenger car81. Information and communication technology too, merits 
special attention as it can make 'aut omated energy efficiency' a reality. 
                                                      
77 COM(2006)545 final. 
78 (1) Energy performance requirements for products, buildings and services, (2) energy transformation, 
(3) transport, (4) financing and pricing, (5) energy behaviour, and (6) international partnerships. 
79 Appliance and equipment labelling, and the setting of minimum energy performance standards. The 
adoption of building performance requirements and very low energy buildings. Making power generation and 
distribution more efficient. Achieving fuel efficiency  of cars. Facilitating appropr iate financing of energy 
efficiency investments for small and medium size enterp rises and energy services companies. Spurring energy 
efficiency in the new Member States. Coherent use of taxation. Raising ener gy awareness. Energy efficiency in 
built-up areas. Fostering of en ergy efficiency world wide. 
80 European Environment Agency, Annual European Community Greenhouse Gas Inventory 1990-
2005 and Inventory Report 2007, p. 88. 
81 The Commission is preparing a proposal amending Directive 1999/94/EC relating to the availability 
of consumer information on fuel economy and CO 2 emissions in respect of the marketing of new passenger cars.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 385 
 
 
 To support investments to improve en ergy efficiency, financing schemes82 exist and the first results 
are very positive: more urban development and renew al projects take energy efficiency into account. 
For example, under the initiative of the German KfW bank, for the 1990-2006 period a loan volume of more than € 40 billion was committed and efficie ncy measures in some 2,5 million homes were 
financed. The investments in 2006 alone will achiev e a long-term reduction of more than 1 million 
tons per annum in CO
2 emissions and provided 220.000 jobs for that year, especially in the 
construction industry. Designing effective energy efficiency measures target ed for households and 
small and medium-sized companies requires a well coordinated financing fr amework coming from 
private, national and EU sources. The latter in clude the structural funds. The Commission will 
present a Communication on the financing of low-carbon technologies in spring 2009. 
 
Energy companies are engaged in developing, instal ling and financing projects centred on improving 
energy efficiency. They are important actors as they are in direct contact with energy users. A number 
of obligations already apply to them on the basis of the Energy Services Directive and the Electricity 
and Gas Directives83 but they are not systematically en forced. The Commission and the Member 
States will monitor the implementation of the Directives more intensively and proposing action as 
needed, to provide better energy efficiency services to consumers. 
 Question 2 
La UE y la Secretaria consignan en sus respectivos  informes los aportes en el área de facilitación del 
comercio en los productos agrícolas y los circunscr iben a los temas arancelarios y algunos otros. Sin 
embargo, como se menciona en el  párrafo 12 del Informe de la Secr etaría, se mantienen prohibiciones 
a las importaciones y medidas de vigilancia por razones sanitarias y fitosanitarias. El párrafo 16 
consigan que los productos agrícolas están protegid os por una compleja estructura arancelaria, por 
medidas sanitarias y fitosanitarias y por subvenciones a la exportación. ¿Consideran las CE que esta 
es una política coherente en la apertura de mercados agrícolas?  
 
Answer
 
As regards SPS, all the measures adopted by the EC are always based on scientific advice provided 
by the international standard setting bodies mentio ned in the SPS Agreement. In accordance with the 
SPS notification procedure, the EC always opens a comment period to allow interested countries to 
send the information they consider relevant in order to  be taken into account. The EC is open to all 
the technical and scientific information that WT O Members send related to the measures under 
consideration when the protection level is hi gher than foreseen in international standards. 
 As regards the EC tariffs part of the question, this is a pure DDA issue which is addressed under the 
tariff simplification chapter in the framework of the agricultural ma rket access negotiations. 
 
In relation to the export subsidies, the latest notific ations of export subsidies by the EC indicate a 
continuous decline in the use of this instrument . In using export refunds, we respect our scheduled 
commitments. Therefore, these measur es are not WTO inconsistent. The EU is committed to the 'Doha 
Development Agenda' (DDA) negotiations which ai m at further liberalising trade, substantially 
cutting trade distorting agricultural support and eliminating trade distorting export competition 
practices. The EC stands by its commitment to e liminate export subsidies by 2013 on condition of the 
successful completion of the DDA. 
                                                     
 
82 The European Investment Bank and the European Bank for Research and Development provide 
financial instruments targeted at various beneficiaries. At EU level, the Cohesion Policy Funds, the 7th Research 
Framework Programme and other sources exist such as  the Global Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
Fund. 
83 Directive 2003/54/EC of 26.6.2003 concerning common rules for the internal market in electricity 
and repealing Directive 96/92/EC. Directive 2003/55/EC of 26.6.2003 concerning common rules for the internal 
market in natural gas and repealing Directive 98/30/EC. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 386  
 
 Question 3 
Los informes de las CE señalan que sus políticas foment an el uso sostenible de  la biodiversidad sobre 
todo en los países en desarrollo, considerando ad emás los temas sociales de pobreza y narcotráfico. 
Como se condice con dichas políticas la aplicación de  la regulación sobre nuevos alimentos cuando se 
aplica a productos derivados de la biodiversidad que son de uso y consumo tradicional en estos 
países? Los productos derivados de la biodiversidad han sido utilizados desde antes de la civilización 
incaica y no se tiene informe alguno de que hayan ocasionado problemas a la salud humana. Dichos 
productos son producidos por peque ños y medianos agricultores de zonas deprimidas o como 
alternativa a la producción de cultivos ilícitos.  Answer
 
The EC is working on the proposal for Novel Foods with the European Parliament. The new proposal 
currently under consideration will take into account of historical records on safe food use in the 
country of origin and other provisions  to facilitate the approval of such  novel foods. If the history of 
safe food use in the country of origin has been de monstrated, the food could be placed on the market 
on basis of a notification of the food business operator intending to market the food.   
 
Question 4 
Con relación al caso de los LMR de plaguicidas, cu ál es el sustento científico que justifique el 
standard adoptado por las CE, que es más estrict o de lo señalado por el codex alimentarius? 
 Answer
 
Concerning the adoption of MRLs for pesticides, all the decisions taken at  EC level are science-
based. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)  evaluates each new proposed MRL and based on 
the EFSA's opinion, the EC can issue a regulation to establish a new MRL or amend or remove an 
existing MRL. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is a separate legal entity, independent 
from the other EU institution which provides th e European Commission with independent scientific 
advice on all matters with a direct or indirect impac t on food safety. The EC is an active partner in 
the international standard-setting bodies and fully collaborate with the rest of its trading partners. 
 Question 5 
Con relación al sector pesca, en el capítulo III dedicado a las políticas y prácticas por medidas, se 
observa que persisten las subve nciones y ayudas económicas para la pesca y acuicultura, en los 
aspectos de restructuración de flota, acuicultura, circuitos de transformación, compensación  a la 
industria atunera. Dichas medidas afectan la co mpetitividad y transparencia en el comercio 
internacional de productos pesqueros  y afectan el d esarrollo sostenible de los recursos pesqueros. 
Asimismo (Capítulo IV), respecto al régimen de or denación pesquera,  a pesar de las reformas del 
2002, las CE estiman que el 88% de de las poblaciones de peces están en peligro debido a la 
sobrepesca, y las cuotas totales de captura (TAC) ha n sido fijadas  por encima de las recomendaciones 
científicas.    Considerando que el tribunal de Cu entas Europeo  ha indicado que el sistema de control de la política 
pesquera común es ineficaz y los datos de captura  son poco fiables para determinar las TAC,  
¿podrían explicar las CE por qué continúan ap licándose programas de apoyo financiero para 
reestructurar la flota, para la acuicultura y la  pesca en aguas interiores, para comercialización e 
infraestructura de puertos pesqueros?, ¿Podrían indicar las CE si se han evaluado los resultados de su reforma en pesquería y cuáles son los resultados?   Answer
 
The two key principles guiding the current EU's polici es for aid to the fisheries sector are to prohibit 
subsidies that encourage overcapacity , leading to overfishing, and to pr ovide those subsidies that help 
to remove capacity in excess of available fish resources or that positively contribute to the sustainable 
development of the fisheries sector. Such subsidies help the fishing industry can make the necessary  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 387 
 
 
 transition to a sustainable state or mitigate the l ong lasting damage that unforeseen factors, above 
and beyond natural disasters, could cause to the fishing industry.   With regard to aquaculture it is exp ected that this industry will have a very important role to play in 
satisfying the present and future de mand for seafood, as confirmed by numerous recent prospective 
studies by international organisations and academi a. On the support to the processing industry and 
on the provision of public finance for fisheries infras tructure, the contribution to over-capacity and to 
over-fishing of these subsidies s till has to be demonstrated. 
 The European Commission is currently carrying out  a review of the current Common Fisheries 
Policy. The Commission has launched this review through the document "GREEN PAPER - Reform of 
the Common Fisheries Policy" COM(2009)163 final of   22.4.2009. This paper analyses the main  
outcomes of the current Policy, in particular its structural failings, and launches a broad public 
consultation on how these failings should be tackled.  The Commission's has also adopted a proposal 
for a radical overhaul of the current CFP control framework. 
 
These documents and other reports on the functi oning of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy are 
available at the following website:  http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/.  Question 6 
Se ha considerado que el apoyo financiero a la pesca debería orientarse f undamentalmente  a reducir 
el esfuerzo pesquero y evitar la  sobreexplotaci ón y depredación de los recursos pesqueros  y  
orientarse a reducir las subvenciones a esta actividad , así como reorientar  los fondos de ayuda un 
mejor sistema de vigilancia y control y evitar la pesca ilegal? ¿Podrían señalar las CE si se está considerando como criterio relevante la sobrecapacidad pesquera? ¿En qué medida? 
 Answer
 
For the first part of the question please refer to the answer to question 5. Concerning the question on taking into account overcapacity as a relevant criterion when considering 
the provision of support to the fisheries sector, please note that the EC has a system in place to 
monitor capacity in the EC fishing fleet.  
In accordance with Article 14 of Council Regulation (EC) 2371/2002 and Article 12 of Commission 
Regulation (EC) 1438/2003, EC Member States are re quired to submit to th e EC Commission, before 
1 May each year, a report on their efforts during th e previous year to achieve a sustainable balance 
between fleet capacity and availabl e fishing opportunities. The Member States’ reports are available 
on the Europa website.  
 
For the latest report, covering the year 2007, th e Commission produced a summary on the basis of the 
aforementioned reports by Member States and the data in the Community fishing fleet register, which 
it presented to the Scientific, Technical and Economic  Committee for Fisheries (STECF) and to the 
Committee for Fisheries and Aquaculture.   
The final report from the Commission (document COM(2008) 902 final of 12 January 2009) presents 
that summary of the Member States’ reports, plus a technical annex (Annex I) and the opinions of the above-mentioned committees, to the Council and the European Parliament (Annex II). The annex 
provides detailed comments on c apacity management together with  tables and graphs showing the 
overall trends in the EC fishing fleet and Member St ates’ compliance with the entry/exit scheme. In 
addition, the following information is available in English on the Europa website: 
 - detailed results as regards compliance by individual Member States; - results in each of the outermost regions of the Community; - Member States’ reports. h ttp://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/ WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 388  
 
 Question 7 
Con relación al área de dumping y subsidios, si bien el documento elaborado por la Secretaría 
contiene información correspondiente al periodo 2007-2008, se ha podido constatar que ésta no se 
encuentra actualizada en lo que se re fiere a las políticas adoptadas en ma teria de subsidios. En efecto, 
en el párrafo 128 del documento se menciona al ré gimen del pago único (RPU) –régimen de ayuda a 
los ingresos para los agricultores– precisándose que ést e no se aplicaría al aceite de oliva y la aceituna 
de mesa. Para sustentar esta afirmación se cita al  Reglamento (CE) Nº 1782/2003. Sin embargo, este 
reglamento fue dejado sin efecto por el Reglam ento Nº 865/2004, el cual fue posteriormente 
sustituido por el Reglamento Nº 1234/2007. Atendien do a ambas disposiciones, a partir del 1 de enero 
de 2006 el aceite de oliva y la aceituna de mesa están comprendidos dentro del régimen de pago 
único.  
Tomando en consideración lo anteriormente señalado, se pregunta a las CE, en la medida que España, 
Francia, Italia, Grecia y Portugal "disociaron" (se gún el término utilizado en el documento) la ayuda 
otorgada al aceite de oliva de la producci ón actual y la "asociaron" a la superficie  histórica cultivada 
en  los años naturales 2000-2002, ¿ qué porcentaje de la superficie histórica se dedicó al cultivo y, 
posteriormente, a la producción de aceite de oliva durante el periodo 2006-2008? 
 
Answer
 
We would like to refer Peru to the replies whic h were provided in the framework of the AS 
investigation concerning imports of olive oil. Rel evant parts of these replies were used to draft the 
reply below:  
 
In 2003, the Common Agricultural Policy ('C AP') of the European Communities underwent a 
profound reform (Council Regulatio n 1782/2003). As a result previously existing aid schemes do not 
exist as such any longer. The aim of the reform was to move away from a policy of price and 
production support to a policy of sustaining farmers' incomes. This was achieved by decoupling of 
direct aids to producers and the introduction of the Single Payment Scheme ('SPS'). This new Single 
Payment Scheme has no trade distor ting effects and qualifies for inclusion in the green box as defined 
in Annex 2, § 6 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture.  The SPS is completely decoupled from production in the sense that it is granted directly to farmers, 
irrespectively of any level of production. A farmer is meant to exercise an agricultural activity such as 
production, rearing or growing of agricultural products including harvesting, milking, breeding 
animals and keeping animals for farming purposes, or  maintaining the land in good agricultural and 
environmental condition. Therefore th ere is no obligation to produce (Article 2 of the CAP reform). 
Production, eligible hectares and previous aids are only historical factors taken into consideration 
with regard to a reference period in the past, in or der to determine the amount of aid to be granted. 
Thus the SPS is fully decoupled from actual prod uction. This methodology complies with Annex 2 § 6 
of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. One of th e purposes of the CAP reform is that farmers 
produce in a market-orientated manner, respectful of the environmental aspects. Since the CAP 
reform in 2003, the scheme is availa ble to all eligible farmers (par 6(a) of Annex 2 AoA) in all EU 
Member States, no matter whether the farmers produce or not and, as the case may be, irrespective of 
what they produce.  
 
The implementation of the CAP reform in the olive oil and table olives sector
 
As of 1 January 2006 the new scheme entered into fo rce also for the olive oil and table olive sector. 
Council Regulation 865/2004, which was replaced by Council Regulation 1234/2007 (in force as of 
1 July 2008) the 'Single CMO Regulation', provides inter alia, for the repeal of the production aid 
scheme, the export refund (which was already fixed at 0 since the late 90s) and the refund for the 
manufacture of certain preserves. Coupled support to  the olive oil sector was partly abolished in 
2005/2006, beneficiaries became eligible for the ne w decoupled SPS payments. Certain flexibility was 
granted to the individual Member States with regard to  the application of the scheme. In this context 
Italy, Greece, Portugal and France opted for the decoupled system, while Spain decoupled 93,6% and  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 389 
 
 
 linked 6,4% to the maintenance of olive groves of  environmental and social value. For coupled 
support, the farmer has no obligation whatsoever to produce olive oil or even harvest the olives. 
Nevertheless, cross compliance dispositions such as  public, animal and plant health, environment, or 
animal welfare, are always applied (Articles 3 to 9 of Regulation 1782/2003).  
Amount of the direct payment after the reform
 
As provided for by Article 37(1) of Council Re gulation 1782/2003, the reference amount is the four 
year average of the total amounts of payments wh ich a farmer was granted under the olive oil support 
scheme during the marketing years 1999/2000, 2000/2001, 2001/2002 and 2002/2003. The same Regulation also provides for various adjustments of these amounts such as modulation (Article 10), 
financial discipline (Article 11), ceiling (A rticle 41), or national reserve (Article 42). 
The actual recipient of the direct payment is the fa rmer (not necessarily the owner of the olive grove) 
who received the aid during the referen ce period. In order to get paid,  he neither has to produce nor 
own the olive grove, as long as he fulfils hi s obligations under the cross compliance dispositions. 
 
Latest developments concerning olive oil ("Health Check")
 
Council Regulation (EC) No. 73/200 9 of 19 January 2009 superseded Council Regulation 1782/2003. 
Concerning olive oil, the flexibility used by Spain since 2006 to keep part of the payments coupled to 
the maintenance of olive groves of environmental and  social value has been  removed and farmers will 
now receive decoupled income support (application as fr om 1 January 2010). 
The previously existing coupled aid has been granted only in Spain since 2006. It amounts to 
€ 103.14 million per year. The area for which th e coupled aid has been granted is 1 373 723 ha in 
2006 and 1 380 427 ha in 2007.  Question 8 
En el párrafo 39 del documento de la Secretaría se  indica: se mantienen prohibiciones y actividades de 
vigilancia de las importaciones por motivos, entr e otros, de seguridad, técnicos, sanitarios, 
fitosanitarios y ambientales.  ¿Podrían las CE e xplicar  cuáles son las prohibiciones y restricciones 
aplicadas a las importaciones por motivos de segurid ad y ambientales? ¿A qué productos se aplica? 
Por favor especificar las líneas arancelarias.  
Answer
 
EU environmental policy as well as other areas of EU public policy aim at a high level of protection. 
Regulating products - both domestic and imported ones, and in conform ity with WTO rules - is one 
way of achieving this aim. Such regulation may take various forms (prohibition, certification, 
labelling requirements etc), depending on what is necessary to achieve the objectives pursued. 
Relevant EU legislation has been notified to th e Contracting Parties in accordance with WTO 
transparency rules. 
 Any import restrictions imposed by the EC on s anitary grounds follows three principle norms: they 
are based on scientific grounds, they are non-discrimi natory and they follow the WTO principles of 
the agreement on sanitary and phytosanitary measu res. The relevant legislation has been duly 
notified and we invite Peru to consult those notif ications. Moreover, the EC has put in place an 
intensive program of cooperation and technical a ssistance for developing coun tries to address issues 
in this area.  Question 9 
En el párrafo 110, se señala: Las restricciones a la exportación están permitidas por razones de moralidad pública, de protección de la salud y de la vida de las personas y de los animales o de 
preservación de los vegetales, y de protección del pa trimonio nacional cultural. ¿Podrían explicar las 
CE cómo se determina que existe una causal de moralidad pública? ¿Con qué criterios? ¿Qué autoridad está encargada de hacer dicha determinación?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 390  
 
 Answer
 
There is no specific procedure for such determina tions in the European Communities or the Member 
States. In the rare instances in which public mora lity plays a role for measures that may require 
justification under Article XX of the GATT 1994, it is  generally the respective legislator as a whole 
(including the body that makes and explains the legislative proposal) that is responsible for 
evaluating the existence of a public morality case and for expressing the result of  its evaluation in the 
adoption (or not) of a given measure. The criteria for such an evaluation are the prevailing societal 
values and interests as determined by the legislator.    Question 10 
En la actual coyuntura de crisis económica internac ional, donde existe una acentuada tendencia a 
recurrir a medidas proteccionistas, las CE ya ha n adoptado nuevas subvenciones a la exportación, 
particularmente en el caso de lácteos. ¿Cómo pueden garantizar las CE que cumplirán sus 
compromisos con la OMC si se adoptan ese tipo de medidas? ¿Cuáles son las principales medidas  que 
en el área agrícola se han adoptado desde el 2007 dent ro de los planes de respuesta a la crisis o el  
plan de estímulo económico? 
 
Answer
 
The EC has always and will continue to respect it s international obligations. The EC introduced 
export subsidies for certain dairy products in th e beginning of 2009 as a temporary safety net 
measure in an exceptional situation. In using export subsidies we respect our scheduled 
commitments under the WTO and theref ore, these measures are not WTO inconsistent. The EC stands 
by its commitment to phase-out export subsidies by  2013 on condition of a successful completion of 
the DDA, in which our trading partners have also disciplined their export support programmes.  
 The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been in  a process of ongoing reform since the early 
1990s. Reforms have focused mainly on increasing the competitiveness of agriculture by reducing 
support prices and compensating farmers by the introduc tion of direct aid payments. A decisive step 
came in the 2003/2004 CAP reform with the de coupling of direct aids from production and a 
realignment of the CAP with consumer concerns. This  reform was a key step towards a more market 
oriented and sustainable CAP. As a result of the recent agreement on the so-called Health Check of 
the CAP , decoupling has been further strengthe ned and more than 90% of EC direct support is 
decoupled. 
 Question 11 
Están excluidas de la protección por patente las i nvenciones cuya explotación comercial sea contraria 
al orden público o las buenas costumbres. 
 
Answer
 
Yes. 
 
Question 12 
En los párrafos 197 al 204 del informe de la Secret aría, relativo a la observancia en la propiedad 
industrial, figura el compromiso de las CE contra la  falsificación y la pirate ría. Se señala asimismo, 
que Las CE son uno de los principales participan tes en las negociaciones de un Acuerdo comercial 
plurilateral contra la falsificación. En el marco de la política de las CE contra la piratería, ¿podrían 
explicar las CE cuáles son las medidas adoptadas por  las CE contra la biopiratería? ¿Cuál es la 
definición, el alcance y la importancia que se le ot orga a esta problemática que afecta principalmente 
a los países ricos en diversidad biológica, en el c ontexto de la Ronda de Doha para el Desarrollo? 
 
Answer  
The EC attaches great importance to the issue of misappropriation of genetic resources (bio-piracy) 
and has taken a pro-active stance on this issue in int ernational forums. In the WTO, in particular in  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 391 
 
 
 the context of the Doha Development Agenda, the EC has repeatedly said that it was ready to discuss 
and examine the possible introduction of a disclosure requirement in patent law. Last year, together 
with a large majority of WTO membership, the EC agreed on a joint approach to get all TRIPS-
related issues, including the disclosure issue, in th e horizontal process with a view to a decision on 
modalities. The EC remains firmly committed to th is common platform. In 2004, the EC submitted a 
detailed proposal to WIPO on the Disclosure of  Origin or Source of Genetic Resources and 
Associated Traditional Knowledge in Patent Applic ations. At the EC level, the preamble of EC 
Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biot echnological inventions, and  in particular recital 
27, lays down that, if an invention is based on biological material of plant or animal origin, or if it uses such material, the patent application shou ld, where appropriate, include information on the 
geographical origin of such material, if known; th is is without prejudice to the processing of patent 
applications or the validity of rights arising from  granted patents. Recital 27 of Directive 98/44/EC 
has to be regarded as being an encouragement to mention the geographical origin of biological 
material in the patent application, along the lin e indicated by Article 16(5) of the Convention on 
Biological Diversity. Information about the geographica l origin of a biological material being the  
subject of an invention can be helpful for the pro cess of equitable benefit-sharing of the resources of 
biological diversity. However, to provide such info rmation is not an obligation under Community law. 
Nor does the failure to provide su ch information has, as such, any legal consequence for the 
processing of patent applications, or on the validity  of rights arising from granted patents. Several 
EU Member States have transposed these provisions in their national legislation  
 
VIETNAM
 
 
Question 1 
EC confirms to consider the GSP on the basis of  fairness, transparency and non-discrimination. 
However, Viet Nam recognizes that EC has adopted an unfair and discriminatory approach against 
Viet Nam. This is reflected in the fact that while  trade figures of other countries was considered in the 
normal trade condition, the commodities in section XII of Viet Nam was considered in the context of 
anti-dumping duties imposed on footwear with upper of leather, making it impossible for Vietnam to meet the technical thresholds. The double negative im pacts resulted from the EC's withdrawal of GSP 
granted to Vietnam and imposition of anti-dumping duties on footwear led to the sharp decline in footwear industry of Viet Nam, which is negativ ely affecting the economic development and social 
security of Viet Nam. This situation is worsened in the current economic crisis. 
 
Answer
 
The GSP scheme is based on the principle of non- discrimination. The calculation of graduation has 
been done strictly following the mechan ism envisaged in the GSP Regulation. 
 
GSP preferences and the calculation of graduation ta ke place under normal trade conditions as the 
antidumping (AD) duty on footwear is imposed to correct an existing unfair pricing for dumped 
imports and to restore fair competition.   Furthermore, there is no direct causal link between  AD measures and the GSP thresholds. According 
to statistical data, the affected Section's XII rel ative share in Vietnam's GSP imports dropped over the 
last 6 years and Vietnam is gaining competitiveness in  other sections, which explains the decline of 
the threshold envisaged in art.13.4 of GSP Re gulation no 732/2008 for Vietnam. The decline is 
therefore not due to AD measures, which were impl emented only in the second quarter of 2006 (GSP 
thresholds are calculated on trade  flows in 2004/2005/2006) and covered only 40 out of 480 tariff 
codes of section XII.  
 The EC is aware of the importance of the shoe making industry for the economy of Vietnam; still it 
has to apply the GSP Regulation in a non discri minatory manner. Vietnam's exports of products WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 392  
 
 under Section XII reached the threshold envisaged in the GSP Regulation and consequently the GSP 
tariffs had to be removed for products covered by this Section. 
 
Question 2 
The application of the EC's chemical policy, na mely REACH challenges Vietnamese enterprises with 
many difficulties and creates significant extra cost s and burdens for understanding new regulations, 
registration and study their impacts. Viet Nam would like to request EC to issue an official guidebook 
on this matter. 
 
Answer
 
The need to ensure that the obligations contained in the Regulation should not be more trade-
restrictive than necessary to achieve the goals intended by the Regulation, notably the protection of 
human health and the environment, was a main con cern during the legislative process leading to the 
adoption of REACH.  Many features of the Regulation were specifically designed to address this concern.  Among others, we would note that the reg istration requirements depend on volume in which 
a particular substance is produced  or imported by an EU-based legal entity, that substances 
sufficiently regulated under other sectoral legislati on have been exempted, that  the entry into force of 
the obligations in REACH has been done progressi vely, and that reductions up to 90% of the 
registration fees apply to SMEs.  Regarding the request for a guide book on REACH,  we note that the EC has already made 
considerable efforts to help companies, includi ng from third countries to better understand REACH.  
In this regard, it is noted that guidance documents and other tools are availabl e free of charge from 
the website of the European Chemicals Ag ency (http://echa.europa.eu/home_en.asp). 
 
WT/TPR/S/214 
 
Question 3 
Regarding the issue of IUU, Vietnam believes th at the regulation should be applied on aquatic 
products fished in the sea zone of the EU. We are of the view that fishing in the national sea zone is 
regulated by national regulations and the Certificate of Origin is sufficient if products are exported to 
the EU. For aquatic products fished in the inte rnational sea zone, the regulations of recognized 
international fishery organizations in charge of such  zones, if any, would be applied. The application 
of EC regulations creates many difficulties for fi shing, processing and trading aqua products of Viet 
Nam. Vietnam would appreciate if EC could issue, as soon as possible a guidebook on these regulations because they are quite complicated to apply.  Answer
 
IUU fishing is a global problem and one of the most serious threats to the sustainable exploitation of living aquatic resources. It also represents unfai r competition for those who exploit fish resources 
legally. Developing countries are particular ly affected by IUU fishing activities. 
 The EC is valuable target for IUU operators. Th e EC has an enormous res ponsibility in the fight 
against IUU fishing worldwide as the EC is the larg est importer of fishery products in the world. It 
has one of the biggest fleets and many trading par tners on all continents on import and export side. 
 The EC has been tremendously active in the fight  against IUU fishing for over a decade, both at 
international level and within regional fisheries or ganisations (RFMOs). However, despite regional 
and international efforts to stop IUU fishing th e phenomenon is still a gr owing problem and as a 
result the EC adopted the IUU Regulation in 2008.  There are strict control measures in place for EC  waters to ensure that no IUU fishing activities are 
carried out. The reinforcement of the EC Control Regulation will improve the control of EC vessels,  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 393 
 
 
 as well as of EC nationals involved in IUU fishing.  Furthermore, all  exports of EC catches will be 
subject to the same certification scheme as the one applied to imports, whenever the country of 
destination requests so, and, in any case, where they  are to be imported into the EC from a third 
country.  
The EC is not asking flag States to comply with the EC  rules, laws or management measures, i.e., it is 
not imposing its own standards. The IUU Regulation refers to laws and regulations  adopted by third 
countries, as well as international con servation and management measures (UNCLOS, FAO, 
RFMOs). The EC is not expecting either that third countries introduce new conservation and management measures. When validating a catch cer tificate, flag States exporting fishery products to 
the EC will have to confirm that their catches were done according to their own national rules on 
conservation and management of fishing resources.  The certification systems adopted by RFMOs and whic h comply with the requirements of this 
Regulation may be accepted for the species concern ed. The list of such documentation schemes shall 
be determined by the Commission. However, the certi ficates of origin currently used for import of fish 
and fishery products into the EC do not provide information on the conservation and management 
measures which the catch should comply with and, th erefore, are not valid in the framework of this 
Regulation.  The Commission is currently working on an implementi ng Regulation with the te chnical provisions to 
facilitate the implementation of the IUU Regulation.  The target date for adoption of the implementing 
regulation is in mid 2009. It will be complement ed by a document giving practical guidelines on how 
to actually apply the IUU Regul ation, among other things on the catch certification scheme and the 
procedures to be followed by third country fishing vessels landing their catches in the EU. 
Bilateral discussions are being held with several countries, including Vietnam, in order to ensure a 
smooth transition to the new system, which will appl y from as from 2010. The Commission is willing 
to further cooperate with third countries in order to  facilitate the implementati on of the Regulation. In 
addition to the bilateral contacts, the Commission is  also holding regional information seminars on 
all continents.  There will be a regional sem inar in Ho Chi Minh City in May 2009. 
 
Question 4 
Viet Nam would like to request the EC to clarify th eir point of views in paragraph 37th in EC's report 
to WTO.  
Answer
 
The EC's position is set out in more detail in its submissions to the Rules Negotiating Group. May we 
refer to the WTO webpage where all EC documents  submitted in the course of the ongoing 
Negotiating Group on Rules are published with th e following document numbers: TN/RL/W/67; 
TN/RL/GEN/134; TN/RL/GEN/135; TN/RL/W/30; TN/RL/GEN/93; TN/RL/W/82; TN/RL/GEN/39; TN/RL/W/138; TN/RL/W/13.  
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 394  
 
 THAILAND II
 
 
WTO Secretariat Report (WT/TPR/S/214) 
 
INTRODUCTION : PAGE 21 - PARA 33 
 
Question 1 
How would the EC prepare to deal with the issue of preference erosion under the NAMA negotiations 
in connection with the EC proposal for the tariff re ductions on textiles, clothing, and footwear which 
proposes to reduce tariffs of all WTO Members to as close to zero as possible?   Answer
 
The EC considers that a sectoral on textiles, clothing and footwear could address the issue of preference erosion in an ideal fashion since all markets of all major WTO Members would have 
tariffs as close as possible to zero and exporters of these products would then have a larger market 
than the EC only and their exports would find many  more outlets than it is the case at the moment. 
 III. T
RADE POLICIES AND PRACTICES BY MEASURE  
 MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS  
Customs procedures (page 35, para 8) 
 
Question 2 
The report states "The Modernized Community Cust oms Code (MCC) entered into force in June 
2008, introducing a thorough reform of community customs rules and procedures."   Is the Modernized Community Customs Code (MCC) different from the Harmonized Commodity 
Description and Coding System (HS) developed by the World Customs Organization (WCO) which 
has been the basis for the EC schedule of commitment under the WT O? Please explain. Please also 
provide the comparison of the main changes between the Customs Code (CC) and MCC.   
Answer
 
1 The Harmonized System (HS) provides the basis  for the Combined Nomenclature (CN) which 
is used basically for the classification of goods. 
The CN is comprised of the Ha rmonized System (HS) nomenclature with further Community 
subdivisions. The Modernized Community Customs Code (MCC) provides the future legal framework for customs 
rules and procedures throughout the EU customs territory. 
Consequently the HS and the MCC are two different instruments serving different purposes. 
 2 The main changes between the Customs Code  (CC) and the Modernized Customs Code 
(MCC) are: 
• rationalisation of the legal framework and the definition of customs rules and 
procedures - in particular there are now fewer procedures  
• greater standardisation of customs rules and their implementation, through 
increased "uniformity" of economic operators'  rights and obligations, in particular 
as regards decisions, simplifications and guarantees  
• simplification of customs procedures - especially through computerisation and the 
possibility of managing them at EU level  ("centralised customs clearance")  
• computerisation of all declarations and data exchange  
• interoperability of national customs computer systems - facilitating trade while 
ensuring tight control through common management of risks and easier cooperation between customs authorities   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 395 
 
 
 • the basis is laid for new facilities such as self-assessment by operators and single 
window  /one-stop services.  
 Intellectual property rights 
 
Question 3 
The report describes on page 90, para 189, the proposed amendment to Directive 2006/116/EC, that 
aims, among other things, "to introduce a uniform method of calculating the term of protection 
applying to co-written musical works."   Could the EC please provide details on the uniform method of calculating such protection?  How did 
the EC come up with this method? 
 
Answer
 
"The Commission has proposed to introduce the follo wing text to the Directive as Article 1(7) "The 
term of protection of a musical composition with words shall expire 70 years after the death of the 
last of the following persons to survive, whether or not these persons are designated as co-authors: 
the author of the lyrics and the compo ser of the music."  This is consis tent with the method used in the 
existing article 2(2) of the Directive with resp ect to cinematographic or audiovisual works." 
 
Question 4 
The report states on page 90, para 190, that EC Me mbers "must provide legal protection against the 
circumvention of any effective technological measure used to prevent infringement of the rights of a 
copyright holder" and that "the manufacture, importati on, distribution, sale, rental, or advertisement of 
any device used to facilitate circumvention of an effective technological measure is prohibited."   
 Please provide more information about the exceptions  of technological circumvention and its relation 
with the "fair use" doctrine? 
 
Answer
 
"The "fair use" doctrine is not part of EU copyright le gislation.  This is more typical of US copyright 
legislation.  In EU copyright legislation th ere are specified exceptions and limitations which the 
Member States either must provide or may provide for.   Article 6(4) of the 2001/29 Copyright in the 
Information Society Directive states that Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure 
that rightholders make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in 
national law in accordance with seven "public poli cy" exceptions the means of benefitting from that 
exception or limitation to the extent necessary to be nefit from that exception or limitation and where 
that beneficiary has legal access to the protected  work or subject matter.  These seven exceptions 
apply to areas such as for teaching or  for the benefit of the disabled." 
 
IV. TRADE POLICIES BY SECTOR  
AGRICULTURE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES  
Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) (Para. 65 & footnote 78) 
 
Question 5 
Could the EC please clarify when it intends to notify Council Regulation (EC) No 1005/2008 of 
29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, 
unreported and unregulated fishing, amending Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1936/2001 
and (EC) No 601/2004 and repealing Regulations  (EC) No 1093/94 and (EC) No 1447/1999? 
 
Please also clarify to which committee the notification might be made, and when. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 396  
 
 Please also elaborate on any special and different  treatment for developing and least developed 
countries that might be affected by such regulation.  
Answer
 
The Council Regulation (EC) No. 1005/2008 wa s notified to the WTO Secretariat on the 
10 February 2009. The notification wa s registered by the Central Registry of Notifications and did 
not come under any specific committee. It was given  the reference WT/L/747. The EC considered that 
this Regulation does not come under any Specific Notification requirement under the WTO Agreement. This is the reason why the notificatio n was done under the General notification pursuant 
to paragraph 3 of the Understanding Regarding Notific ation, Consultation, Dispute Settlement and 
Surveillance adopted on 28 November 1979 (L/4907 ) and the Decision on Notification Procedures 
annexed to the Final Act Embodying the Results  of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade 
Negotiations.  The IUU Regulation does not foresee any special an d differential treatment for developing countries. 
Developing countries are the main victims of I UU fishing operators. Legal operators in these 
countries will benefit from the elimination of the unfair competition they are currently facing. The EC 
will help them with the implementation process of the IUU Regulation.  Bilateral discussions are being held with several count ries, including Thailand, in order to ensure a 
smooth transition to the new system, which will appl y from as from 2010. The Commission is willing 
to further cooperate with third countries in order to  facilitate the implementati on of the Regulation. In 
addition to the bilateral contacts, the Commission is  also holding regional information seminars on 
all continents. There will be a regional seminar in Ho Chi Minh City in May 2009, to which Thailand 
has been invited. 
 
Manufacturing: High-technology products (Paras 97 – 98)  Question 6 
What products does the EC regard as presenti ng specific challenges for ITA Members?   
 Does the EC have a list of products which it would like to see included into the ITA product coverage 
and will the EC please share this list with the ITA Members?  
 Does the EC intend to include the products identif ied and being considered in the current dispute 
panel proceedings (WT/DS 375, WT/DS376, WT/DS377)? 
 
Answer
 
The EC has indicated in its recent Communicati on, dated 15. September 2008 registered under the 
numbers G/IT/W/28 and TN/MA/W/107, by means of which it proposed to start negotiations to expand 
the product coverage of ITA and eliminate NTBs in these products, that technological convergence 
between IT-related products and consumer electronics poses some challenges to all ITA participants. 
 
The EC would welcome suggestions from other Memb ers in this respect and has actually urged them 
to make such suggestions in its latest proposal to update the ITA. The EC is in principle in favour of broad co verage for the ITA and considers that ITA participants 
shall discuss together expanded product coverage. 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 397 
 
 
 INDONESIA  
 
EU Regulations on Nickel Classifications 
 
Indonesia has deep concerns on the EC’s handling of nickel classifications as  stipulated in the 30th and 
31st ATP to the DSD and the 1st ATP to the CLP Regulation, especially with regard to the EC’s 
obligations under the TBT Agreement.  In this respect, Indonesia would like to  seek some clarifications as follows: 
 
Question 1 Could the EC explain why there are two different regulations in the EU that deal with nickel 
classifications, the 30
th and 31st ATP to the DSD and the 1st ATP to the CLP Regulation. Which one is 
currently in effect? Which one is relevant to nick el classification? Is there a transitional period, 
bearing in mind that the 1st ATP to the CLP Regulation is still currently discussed internally within 
the EU. How does REACH play into this. How is th e self-classification procedure relevant to nickel 
classification? 
 
Answer  
The 30th and 31st ATPs amended Annex I to Dire ctive 67/548/EEC by introducing new and updated 
harmonised classifications. Annex I of Directive 67/548/EEC was repealed by the Classification, 
Labelling and Packaging Regulation (CLP Regulation 1272/2008, OJ L353/1, 31.12.2008) as of 
20 January 2009. All harmonised classifications from Annex I of this Directive have to be 
incorporated into Annex VI to the CLP Regulation 1272/2008.   
 With a view to transferring the harmonised classific ations contained in the 30th and 31st ATPs into 
Annex VI to the CLP Regulation, the Commission prepared a proposal for a first ATP to the CLP 
Regulation. Like the CLP Regulation itself, this ATP  will take the form of a Regulation and, therefore, 
be directly applicable throughout the EU.  Th e proposal was circulated to WTO members as 
documents G/TBT/N/EEC/151/Add.2, /TBT/N/EEC /212/Add.3 and G/TBT/N/EEC/163/Add.2.  
 The harmonised nickel classifications will start applying when the 1st ATP of the CLP Regulation 
starts applying, which is curren tly foreseen for 1/12/2010.  
 Member States represented in the REACH Committ ee gave a unanimous favourable opinion for the 
1st ATP on 25 March 2009.   
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (REACH) does not affect the 1st ATP of the CLP Regulation. 
 Directive 67/548/EEC (as in future the CLP Regulation) sets forth the basic principle of self classification based on available information. In this  case, the fact that the classifications have been 
harmonised and will be included in  Annex VI soon would be a very st rong reason to self-classify the 
substance by using the newly harmonised classific ations listed in the 30th and 31st ATPs for the 
substances not covered by an existing entry in Annex VI of the CLP Regulation. 
 Directive 67/548/EEC (as in future the CLP Regulation) sets forth the basic principle of self classification based on available information. In this  case, the fact that the classifications have been 
harmonised and will be included in  Annex VI soon would be a very st rong reason to self-classify the 
substance by using the newly harmonised classific ations listed in the 30th and 31st ATPs for the 
substances not covered by an existing entry in Annex VI of the CLP Regulation.  
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 398  
 
 Question 2 
Indonesia believes that the EC’s notification of 30
th and 31st ATP to the Dangerous Substances 
Directive (DSD) does not cease the EC’s obligation to notify the 1st ATP to the CLP Regulation to the 
TBT Committee since they are different technical regulations that imposes different standards and obligations. In this regard, does the EC  still hold its position not to notify the 1
st ATP to the CLP 
Regulation to the TBT Committee as has been mandat ed under Article 2.9 TBT Agreement? If yes, 
please provide detail arguments.  
Answer
 
The 1st ATP to the CLP Regulation has been  notified as an addendum to the 30th and 31st ATPs and to 
the CLP and not as a new regulation, because it does not introduce any new technical regulations: 
the substances and preparations covered in the 1s t ATP to the CLP Regulation are the same ones as 
those covered by the 30 and 31st  ATP which were already notified. 
 The 1
st ATP does not set out new classifications, but 'mechanically' transfers the harmonised 
classifications contained in 30th and 31st ATPs to Annex VI to the CLP Regulation.  This transfer is 
necessary because, upon its entry into force on 20 January 2009, the CLP Regulation deleted Annex I to Directive 67/548/EEC, which the 30
th and 31st ATPs aimed to am end. In addition, the 1st ATP 
provides for substances contained in the 30t h and 31st ATPs the corres ponding classification and 
labelling converted to the GHS classification and la belling codes. This translation has been done on 
the basis of the translation table of the Annex VI I to the CLP regulation as was the case for all 
substances currently listed in the Annex VI of the CLP regulation.  
 Question 3 
Could the EC explains that the 1
st ATP to the CLP Regulation is not trade restrictive than necessary as 
mandated in Article 2.2 TBT Agreement? 
 
Answer  
As answered above, the 1st ATP is a 'mechanical' tran sfer of the harmonised classification in the 30th 
and 31st ATPs to Annex VI of the CLP Regulation. As  the classification of substances in itself does not 
imply restrictions on their use, the EC, after thoroug h examination, concluded that the impact of the 
30th and 31st ATP on trade was minimal – indeed the main consequence is that the classified 
substances or preparations would need to be la belled in accordance to the provisions of the 
Directive 67/548/EEC.  Question 4 
Article 12.3 TBT Agreement recognizes special devel opment, financial and trade needs of developing 
countries in the preparation and application of technical regulations, standards and conformity 
procedures. How does the 1
st ATP to the CLP Regulation impl ements this S&D provision?  
 
Answer  
As discussed above, the 1st ATP is 'mechanical' transfer of the harmonised classification in the 30th 
and 31st ATPs to Annex VI of the CLP regulation. 
 
Question 5 
Private sectors in Indonesia are having a hard time to understand the current legislation on the 
classification of nickel in the EU. Does the EC pr ovide sufficient information and timetable schedule 
of the various legislation that affect nickel classi fication so as to enable companies to trade with a 
better degree of certainty and less trade distortion? 
 
Answer  
The EC would like to reassure Indonesia that it offers sufficient information as regards the legislation 
affecting nickel classifications, as has been the case in the past.  The EC has provided detailed replies  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 399 
 
 
 to WTO members during the meetings of the TBT committee where these classifications have been 
discussed. The minutes of these meetings are already pub licly available, as well as the replies the EC 
has provided to the different TBT enquiry points. This  information can be shared with the private 
sector so that they have a better understanding on how the have to classify the nickel compounds.   
For a timetable schedule: see first question regardi ng the currently foreseen date of application of the 
1st ATP.   
 
Renewable Energy  Directives (RED) 
 
Indonesia has vast interests in the EU Directiv e on the Promotion of the Use of Energy from 
Renewable Sources. The Directive will impose envi ronmental sustainability criteria that may have 
discriminatory impacts on the sources of biofuels.  With reference to the draft Directive dated on 17 December 2008, Indonesia would like to seek 
clarifications as follows: 
 
Question 6 
Does the EC agree that the Directive is making a distinction between biofuels on the basis of 
production process? If yes, please explain that it do es not violate the WTO Agreement especially 
Article I, III and XI of the GATT 1994.  Answer
 
Yes, the Directive makes a distinction between biof uels on the basis of th e production method.  The 
EC does not consider that this is in violation of the WTO Agreement, in particular of Articles I, III 
and XI of GATT 1994.   
 
Question 7 Please explain the reason for making a distinction between "natural grassland" and "non natural 
grassland" as stipulated in Article 17.3.c.    
Answer
 
The distinction between the two makes it possible to  provide for the exception clause that says that 
raw material can be used when evidence can be  provided where its harvesting would be necessary to 
preserve the grassland status. As this exception is only relevant to non-natural highly biodiverse grassland, the distinction between natural and non-natural highly biodiverse grassland is therefore 
necessary.  
Question 8 Please clarify how does the EC measure and quantify ‘species rich’ and ‘not degraded’ as mentioned 
in Article 17.3.c(ii)? 
 
Answer
 
As the Directive states,  the criteria (and also geographic ranges) for both "natural grassland" and 
"non natural grassland" in the definition of highl y biodiverse grassland will be further established by 
the Commission through 'comitology' procedure, i.e. assisted by a committee. The terms 'species-rich' 
and 'not degraded' will be taken into account in that process.  Question 9 
Subparagraph Article 17.3 specifies that "The Comm ission shall establish the criteria and geographic 
ranges to determine which grassland shall be covered… .". Could the EC indicate the criteria and the 
geographic ranges as stipulated in the subparagr aph? If such provision be adopted, will the 
Commission conduct intensive consultation with all th e relevant parties, including third countries? 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 400  
 
 Answer
 
These criteria and geographic ranges have not yet been established. It is obviously highly desirable 
that these will be established significantly before the deadline for Member St ates to transpose the 
Directive in their national law. Where it concerns important aspects of legislation the Commission usually conducts consultation e. g. through web-based public consultation. Since the definition of 
highly biodiverse grassland affects amongst others th ird countries, this is an important aspect which 
can be expected to be dealt as such. Further, as the Directive states, when it comes to the general 
implementation of the measures relating to biofue ls and bioliquids, the Commission will maintain a 
dialogue and exchange information with th ird countries and biofuel producers, consumer 
organisations and civil society.  
 
Question 10 
Please clarify the intention of introducing a sep arate paragraph on peatland (paragraph 17.5). 
 
Answer
 
Peatland was already mentioned in the Commission proposal for the Directive in the definition of 
wetlands. The separate paragraph in the adopted Directive on peatland shows that issues related to 
peatland and draining of peatland are more co mplex than wetlands in ge neral and are better served 
by a separate paragraph.  Question 11 
Article 17.2 refers to several specific percenta ges to determine greenhouse gas emission saving from 
the use of biofuels and other bioliquids, for example 35%, 50% and 60%. How does the EC come up with these percentages? Are thes e percentages determined using scientific method and referred to 
international standards?  Answer
 
The Commission analysed the height of the percentage  of cut-off for the greenhouse gas savings in its 
impact assessment that accompanied the proposal for the Directive in January 2008. It concluded that 
a cut-off of 30-40% would mean a real impact on greenhouse gas savings and be an appropriate level 
to require additional effort from typical first-generati on biofuels, without setting the cut-off at a level 
with which most of these biofuels are unlikely to  be able to comply. A cut-off of 50-60% was not 
deemed feasible in the short term because the limita tion of availability of biofuels that would comply. 
However, as such cut-off would be one that the best-performing current biofuels will be able to meet, 
it would seem appropriate for the longer term. 
 
BRAZIL III  
 
Pages 20-33, Trade Agreements and Arrangements 
 
Question 1  
The European Union has ongoing trade negotiations w ith the Andean Community, Central America, 
Gulf States, India, Republic of Korea and ASEAN. Could the EU elaborate on the main elements of 
each agreement, and indicate their expected coverage , terms of trade value and tariff lines covered? Is 
there a tentative timetable for the conclusion of each negotiation?  
Answer
  
The aim of each FTA agreement is to cover substantia l trade between parties in  conformity with the 
articles GATT XXIV and GATS V.  
Question 2 
Concerning the negotiations with the Andean Comm unity, could the EU describe the new negotiation 
approach aimed at the conclusion of a ‘multipartite agreement’? In this context, can the EU explain  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 401 
 
 
 how the principle of ‘flexibility’ will be applied to the process of negotiation, considering the 
differences and asymmetries existing between the two blocs and within the Andean Community? 
 
Answer  
Each Andean Country participating in the nego tiation will be a fully sovereign party to the 
agreement. In addition, the agreement will include an extension clause to allow the possibility for 
other Andean Countries to join if they wish to do  so in the future. Regarding flexibilities, the 
agreement may contain different schedules of liubera lisation and limited differences in common rules 
for Andean Countries in order to take into account their important sensitivities. 
 
Question 3 
Could the EU clarify whether the agreement that is  being negotiated with I ndia contains provisions on 
intellectual property rights compatible with Indi a´s relevant production of generic medicaments? 
 
Answer  
Indeed, negotiations for a broad based trade and invest ment agreement with India cover the area of 
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) as was agreed in the EU-India High Level Trade Group (HLTG), recognising that an adequate level of protection of intellectual property plays an important role in 
developing the right climate for trade and foreign direct investment. In the context of the HLTG, both sides also acknowledge that the WTO Agreement on  trade-related aspects of intellectual property 
rights (TRIPS) sets minimum standards of protecti on and enforcement for each category of right. 
WTO Members have the right to go beyond these standards if they consider it necessary and 
appropriate in order to incite innovation, to s pur investment and to reward creators and innovators 
for their work.  Negotiations for a chapter on IPR have already made  some progress but the text is not yet agreed. 
These negotiations are without prejudice to th e Commission's full commitment to the Doha 
Declaration on the TRIPs Agreement and Public Health, including the flexibilities contained therein and the Decision of the WTO General Council of 30 August 2003. Accordingly, the provisions are to be construed in a way which does not impair th e capacity of both parties to promote access to 
medicines and the Commission has made it clear that the provisions on IPR, in  particular on patents, 
must be implemented and interpreted accordingly.  
 
Question 4  
Concerning the negotiations with Central America, can the EU provide information on the progress of 
market access negotiations for agricultural products?  Answer
 
As stated above, it is not possible to provide details  on the ongoing talks, as this negotiating process 
is per se confidential. The two sides share the objective of an am bitious coverage for agricultural 
products, while respecting specific sensitivities of both Parties.  
 Question 5  
The agreements being negotiated with the A ndean Community and Central America contain 
provisions on ‘trade and sustainable development’. Can the EU provide an indication of the nature 
and scope of obligations it intends to include under these provisions? 
 
Answer
 
The purpose of this Chapter is to ensure the resp ect for and effective implementation of key social and 
environmental international Conventions.  In add ition, the EC approach fo r Trade and Sustainable 
Development is accompanied by a monitoring mec hanism of the commitments undertaken in this 
Chapter, including participation of civil society organi zations - in the implementation phase - with the 
purpose to ensure the highest level of transparency and participation. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 402  
 
 Question 6 
What is the trade coverage of the Interim Agreement between the EU and the SADC group? 
 
Answer
 
The trade coverage agreed in the interim EPA with Botswana, Lesotho, Nami bia and Swaziland is not 
less than the liberalization already achieved in the TDCA between the EU and South Africa  (86% of 
imports from the EU). As for Mozambique, the trade coverage agreed in the iEPA will cover 81% of 
imports from the EU by 2023. 
 
Question 7 
Taking into account the fact that SACU is a consolidated customs union, how is the EU managing to 
reconcile the preferences offered to South Africa w ithin the TDCA with those offered to the other 
SACU members in the negotiations with the SADC  group? Are the conditions to be enjoyed by 
SADC countries in the future full EPA to be extended to South Africa? 
 
Answer  
(1) The Parties considered a tariff alignment deal  which would allow South Africa to align their 
tariffs to the EU on the regime agreed with the BLNS.  (2) The door is open for South Africa to join the full SADC EPA. The terms of SA's participation 
in the SADC EPA are subject of further negotiations. 
 
P
AGE 35 
MEASURES DIRECTLY AFFECTING IMPORTS  
Customs procedures 
 "11. The EC Customs Code, which is binding on  all Member States and takes precedence over any 
conflicting national law, provides the basis for achie ving uniformity in customs matters; the Code and 
its implementing provisions lay down the rights and obligations of the customs authorities.  National 
customs legislation applies only where there is no EC regulation or in cases where the EC law allows 
for further specificity at the national level.  Nevertheless, the uniform implementation of common 
customs procedures by EC Member States has been a challenge, with limited interoperability between 
systems. The administration by Member States of various EC customs laws and regulations, 
particularly in the area of valuation and classifica tion, has raised concerns, and this has been the 
subject of a WTO dispute."  
Question 8  
Could the EC clarify what is the uniform in terpretation applicable  to Council Regulation 
No. 1383/2003 with regard to goods in transit? Purs uant to this regulation, may goods in transit be 
seized by Customs irrespective of th e existence of risks that they be illegally introduced in the EC 
market? 
 
Answer
 
EU legislation (Council Regulation 1383/2003) provides for customs to detain goods suspected of 
infringing certain intellectual property rights, including patents, even when goods are in transit. Under the customs legislation, customs do not decide  whether goods are infringing IPR.  The general 
procedure is to detain goods, wh ere there is a suspicion that there is an infringement and contact the 
right holder.  It is then up to the right hold er to pursue the matter through a court, under national 
provisions.  
Question 9 
Page 38, §14 states that ‘seasonal tariffs apply to certain products, main ly agricultural goods’.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 403 
 
 
 Could de EC elaborate on exactly what products are subject to seasonal tariffs, what is their objective, 
and how they are applied? 
 
Answer  
Up to and including 1994, imports of 15 differen t fresh fruit and vegetables were subject to the 
reference price regime. In this regime, on top of the ad valorem duty, a specific duty could be levied 
for products imported from a given origin, when the a verage price of all imports  from this origin was 
below a given reference price. The specific duty was proportional to the difference between the 
reference price and the average price of all imports from this origin. As of 1995, the reference price reg ime was replaced by the entry pr ice system which was accepted as 
part of the Uruguay Round agreement. It is conseque ntly bound. The three basic elements of this 
system, as specified in the agricultural schedule CXL, are:  1. for each product and for each seasonal peri od, the maximum specific duty ever calculated 
under the old system is consolidated into a fixed  maximum specific duty called the 'full tariff 
equivalent'; as such, and in the terms of the UR agreement, the Commission is authorised to levy 
specific duties on all imports of the goods concerned;  2. for each product and for each seasonal period, a threshold entry price is fixed; consignments 
imported at a price above the threshold are not subj ect to any specific duty at all; as such, the 
Commission grants a permanent concession to importers who respect a price, which is, on average, 
equivalent to the price of the same product on the domestic market. 
 3. the maximum specific duty is levied only when the price of the consignment is below 92% of 
the threshold entry price; if the price of the co nsignment is between 100% and 92% of the full 
threshold entry price, the specific duty is progressi ve; it changes in steps of 2%, each of which 
corresponds with a 'price band' equal to 2% of the threshold entry price.  
Question 10  
Page 39, §17 
According to paragraph 17, pg.39, and to table III.1,  on pg.40, tariffs on agricultural products average 
17.9%, as opposed to an average of 4.1% on non-agricultural products. 
 
Could the EC please comment on why average rates are so different on agricultural and non-agricultural products? Are there plans to bring tari ffs on agricultural products into line with those on 
non-agricultural products?   Answer
 
The disparity results from the fact that 8 rounds of WTO negotiations were devoted to NAMA while 
only one to agricultural market access. The respective tariff reduc tions for AMA and NAMA are still 
under discussions under the DDA. 
 
Question 11 
Page 47, § 31 According to paragraph 31 the main change provid ed by the Modernized Customs Code for customs 
regime is the elimination of the drawback system.  Could EC explain how it keeps control of the refu nds related to VAT, once the drawback system was 
eliminated? 
 
Answer
 
The current inward processing drawback system is  related to customs duties and not to VAT.  
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 404  
 
 Question 12  
Page 51, §47 
On paragraph 47, pg.51, the report states that ‘For  agricultural products, the period of validity of 
import licenses depends on the product’.  
Could the EC please elaborate on why licenses for diffe rent products would have  different periods of 
validity? What are the criteria according to which periods of validity are defined? 
 
Answer
 
The period of validity of an import licence is determ ined on the basis of th e need for information 
about the execution of trade actions, according to th e sensitivity of the trade concerned, as well as on 
the basis of trade practices for products involved. The period of validity of an import licence cannot 
exceed the period for which the quota is valid. 
 
Question 13 
Page 56 § 64 What is the level of interference of private sta ndardization organizations in the formulation of 
standards produced by the European standardiza tion organizations? How is the relation between 
them? 
 
Answer
 
CEN, CENELEC and ETSI – the European Standardis ation Organisations (ESO) - are independent 
and private bodies, established as non-profit orga nisations.  Their members are the national 
standards organizations of each EU and EFTA co untries. These Members are themselves generally 
private non-profit and independent or ganisations. The ESO do not repor t to the European institutions, 
although a close cooperation is maintained, esp ecially in the context of Directive 98/34/EC.84 
 
Any private organisation established in the EU may jo in the standardisation committees of the ESOs 
and send experts and delegates via delegations of the member national standards organisations in the 
case of CEN and CENELEC or via direct membership in the case of ETSI. External organisations have also the possibility to apply for a "liaison" stat us with one or more specific technical committees. 
As observers, they acquire the right to have access to  all preparatory documents, make contributions 
(including standards proposals) and  attend all meetings of the relevant technical committees. In some 
cases, the ESO have signed memorandums of underst anding, by which a case-by-case cooperation is 
foreseen. 
 
Question 14  
Page 57 § 67 Paragraph 67 states that, once adopted, st andards must be publicly available. 
 How does that take place? Does the regulator buy th e standard, pay the copyright, and make it public 
to the regulated sector? Or is there any t ype of agreement between the institutions? 
 
Answer
 
Once adopted by CEN, CENELEC or ETSI, European standards are made available by the relevant 
ESO under its own conditions. Whilst ET SI standards are available free of charge on ETSI's web site, 
CEN and CENELEC standards can be purchased fr om one of their members, i.e. the National 
Standards Institutes. The Commission does not publis h the standards, however it publishes the lists of 
                                                      
 84 Directive 98/34/EC laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical 
standards and regulations and of rules of Information Society Services , OJ L 24, 21.7.1998, p. 37, as last 
amended by Council Directive 2006/96/EC of 20 November 2006 (OJ L 363, 20.12.2006, p. 81).  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 405 
 
 
 European harmonised standards supporting each "N ew Approach" directive or regulation. The 
copyright on standards remains the property of the European and national standards organisations.  
 Acknowledging that the cost of purchasing might constitute a barrier to access to standards for 
interested stakeholders and therefore prevent their wider use, in its Communication to the Council 
and the European Parliament of 11 March 200 8 "Towards an increased contribution from 
standardisation to innovation in Europe"
85 as well as in the Small Business Act for Europe adopted in 
June 200886, the European Commission has invited the European and national standards 
organisations to address as a matter of priority th e conditions of access to standardisation, and to 
reconsider, in close cooperation with the Member States and the Commission, their business model in 
order to reduce the cost of access to standards.  
Question 15  
Page 57 § 69 
With which developing countries does the Europ ean Community intend to negotiate Mutual 
Recognition Agreements (MRA)? 
 
Answer
 
The EC does not at present have any plans to negotiate Mutual Recognition Agreements with 
developing countries. 
 
Question 16  
Pages 60 and 61 § 79 
Please, specify the actions taken by the surveillance programmes to deal with Avian Influenza issues. 
 
Answer  
Since 2002, EU Member States have been implem enting AI surveillance programmes in domestic 
poultry and wild birds co-financed by the European  Commission. The  main objective is to detect 
early the introduction of low pathogenic avian influen za of the H5 and H7 subtypes in poultry farms 
with a view to preventing the circulation of these vi ruses which have the potential to mutate to highly 
pathogenic avian influenza. Surveys are carried out according to agreed guidelines as laid down in 
Decision 2007/268/EC*. The surveys cover different poultry production systems targeting those 
deemed at increased risk for virus introduction su ch as free range husbandry systems, multi-age and 
multi-species poultry farms and farms keeping du cks, geese and turkeys. Samples from poultry are 
taken for serological laboratory invest igations and positive findings need  to be followed up by further 
clinical, epidemiological and laboratory examinati ons for virus detection.  If virus presence is 
confirmed the measures of Directive 2005/94/EC ** to control avian influenza have to be 
implemented. 
 Wild bird surveys are carried out by sampling bi rds found dead, hunted birds and trapped live birds 
in particular of species migrating from areas affected by outbreaks of highly pathogenic avian 
influenza of the subtype H5N1 and therefore pre senting a higher risk for virus introduction. When 
highly pathogenic avian influenza of the subtype H5N1  is confirmed in a wild  bird, control measures 
are implemented to prevent the spread to poultry holdings by increased surveillance, biosecurity 
measures and investigations in poultry holdings. Zoning and restrictions on movements of poultry and 
birds and certain poultry products are also applied according to Decision 2006/563/EC***. 
 More information on avian influenza surveillance and annually published repor ts can be found on the 
following webpage:  
                                                     
 
 85 COM(2008) 133 final of 11.03.2008, available at:: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/standards_policy/st andardisation_innovation/doc/com_2008_133_en.pdf. 
86 See http://ec.europa.eu/enterpri se/entrepreneurship/sba_en.htm. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 406  
 
 http://ec.europa.eu/food/animal/diseases/contro lmeasures/avian/eu_resp_surveillance_en.htm 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU riServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2007: 115:0003:0017:EN:PDF 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU riServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006: 010:0016:0065:EN:PDF 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexU riServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2006: 222:0011:0019:EN:PDF 
 
QUESTION 17  
Page 61 § 81 
Regarding sanitary regulations applied to imported food, more information is needed specifically 
about EC veterinary agreements with Canada, New Zealand and the United States and also about 
trade agreements with Chile, Mexico and Switzerla nd. What are the main aspects covered by these 
agreements? 
 
Answer
 
All the aspects dealing with veterinary agreements between EC and the countries mentioned in the 
question are publicly available. 
See in http://ec.europa.eu/food/int ernational/trade/agreements_en.htm  
 
Question 18  
Page 62 § 84 
On September 1st 2008, the EC consolidated the di vergent lists of MRLs previously adopted by 
Member States, with the aim of ‘eliminating technical barriers to trade’, according to WT/TPR/S/214. 
Taking into account the MRLs established by Code x Alimentarius, what percentage of the ‘new’ 
MRLs deviates from those established by Codex?  Why the European Community decided not to 
adopt the Codex Alimentarius p esticide maximum residue levels? 
 
Answer  
The EC do not have data on Codex-EC MRLs. 
 Concerning the adoption of MRLs for pesticides, a ll the decisions of the EC  are science-based. The 
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) evaluates each new proposed MRL and based on the EFSA's opinion, the EC can issue a regulation to establis h a new MRL or amend or remove an existing MRL. 
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is a se parate legal entity, independent from the other 
EU institutions which provides the European Comm ission with independent scientific advice on all 
matters with a direct or indirect impact on food safety. The EC is an active partner in the international standard-setting bodies and fully coll aborate with the rest of its trading partners.  
 
Question 19  
Page 65 § 92 In relation to paragraph 92, pg.65, and the pr oposed new Regulation on Novel Foods, could the EC 
please provide details on how it has taken into acc ount concerns by developing countries that the 
burden of proof that traditional or ethnic products or extracts are safe is being placed on suppliers, 
contrary to what is mandated by Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary 
measures?  Answer
 
The EC have proposed a simplified procedure for tr aditional foods from third countries in the 
revision of Reg. 258/97, taking into account the concerns echoed by third countries in the SPS 
framework. Concerning the claims about the burden of  proof, there is no mention to that in the SPS 
Agreement, and for determining it, it seems necess ary to go to jurisprudence emanating from the 
Appellate Body in former WTO cases. For exa mple, in case EC — Hormones, paragraph. 98 
(WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R"… The initial burden  lies on the complaining party, which must 
establish a prima facie case of inconsistency with a particular provision of the SPS Agreement on the 
part of the defending party, or more precisely, of its  SPS measure or measures complained about."  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 407 
 
 
 Question 20  
In addition, could the EC please clarify why it has chosen to notify proposed changes to the novel 
foods regulation as a TBT measure, rather than as a SPS measure (footnote 125, pg.65)?  
Answer
 
This was already expressed  in the G/SPS/GEN/ 699 document of 8 June 2006, (pages 2-3), referring 
to Regulation (EC) No. 258/97 of the European Par liament and of the Council of 27 January 1997 
concerning novel foods and novel food ingredients:  " First of all, the European Communities believes 
the scope of this legislation falls mostly w ithin the scope of the WTO Agreement on Technical 
Barriers to Trade (the TBT Agreement), together with much food and drink legislation that aims at a 
clear product identification and labelling;  this area is being harmonized at international level by 
several Codex Committees." 
 
Question 21  
When does the European Community expect to have  the new regulation on "Novel Foods" ready to be 
adopted? 
 
Answer  
The first reading in the European Parliament is planned for the end of April, the second reading is 
planned for the end of 2009. Then the adop tion will be in the first half of 2010. 
 
Question 22  
Page 72, §116 
In relation to paragraph 116, pg.72, what is th e view of the EC on how export refunds affect 
international agricultural commodity  prices? How long does the EC plan to maintain this type of 
distorting scheme?  Answer
 
In using export subsidies we resp ect our scheduled commitments u nder the WTO and therefore, these 
measures are not WTO inconsistent measures. Th e EC has always and will continue to respect its 
international obligations. The EC remains committe d in the DDA negotiations to ensure a 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. Th is commitment is, however, conditioned on a successful 
completion of the Doha Round.   
 
Question 23  
Page 73, § 119 
Paragraph 119, pg.73, states that "the EC last notified its assistance and subsidies programmes to the 
WTO in 2007. (...) The notification covers the s ubsidies granted during 2003 (€102 billion) and 2004 
(€111 billion)".  Could the EC please explain why subsidies gran ted have increased from 2003 to 2004? When are 
assistance and subsidies programmes notifications goi ng to be updated? Have these types of measures 
been increasing since 2004? 
 
Answer
 
Data for the years 2005 and 2006 if not already yet covered by the notification submitted in 2007 will 
be included in the next subsidy notification as it was only possible to provide data for the years 2005 
and 2006 at the due date of the submission. The increase of subsidies from 2003 to 2004 is due to 
higher expenditures as regards certain programs.  For more details we refer to the subsidy 
notification  submitted in 2005.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 408  
 
 Question 24  
Page 75, § 126 
According to paragraph 126, pg. 75, "agricultural support under th e CAP still includes export refunds, 
direct aiding, and interventions in agricultura l markets through price supports and assistance for 
storing and processing products".   
Could the EC please provide further information on export refund, direct aiding and price support 
programmes which remain in place under the CAP, including which products they are applied to? Are 
there plans for replacing these progra mmes with income support schemes? 
 
Answer
 
The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) has been in  a process of ongoing reform since the early 
1990s. Reforms have focused mainly on increasing the competitiveness of agriculture by reducing 
support prices and compensating farmers by the introduc tion of direct aid payments. The EU direct 
payments are income support payments. A decisive step came in the 2003/2004 CAP reform with the 
decoupling of direct aids from production and a re alignment of the CAP with consumer concerns. 
This reform was a key step towards a more mar ket oriented and sustainable CAP. Also, the 
proportion of the budget used fo r export subsidies has decreased and continues to decrease as result 
of these reforms. As a result of the recent agreemen t on the so-called Health Check of the CAP , we 
estimate that more than 90% of the direct payments are decoupled. Direct payments decoupled from production are paid out under the Single Payment Scheme. This scheme was notified as a Green Box 
measure in conformity with par 6 of Annex 2 of the Agreement on Agriculture. Coupled direct 
payments, which already now represent a very sm all share of total direct payments, and are 
completely abolished in most of EU Member States,  are destined to further decline. The residual 
measures, such as the suckler cow premium and th e sheep-meat support, remained coupled only in 
some Member States not for questions related to production but rather for the maintenance of 
landscape, especially where land abandonment was an imminent danger. In any event, the low level of 
residual coupled payments is perfectly compliant with  the current provisions of the WTO, as well as 
also with the latest draft modalities of the DDA.  
 
Question 25  
Page 75, § 128 
Paragraph 128, pg.75, mentions that coupled aid schemes are still in place for farmers producing 
arable crops, rice, milk, sheep and goat meat, beef and veal meat, and others. Are there plans to reform these programmes, decoupling the support offere d? Is there a time frame for such changes to 
take place?  Answer
 
The 2003 reform gave the possibility to MS to keep c oupled payments in some sectors to avoid risks of 
abandonment of production, lack of raw material suppl y for processing industries, or to avoid social 
and environmental problems in areas with few econo mic alternatives. The Health Check has extended 
the degree of decoupling. In less problematic sectors such as arabl e crops, hops and olive oil, full 
decoupling applies from 2010. In others such as beef , rice, nuts seeds, protein and starch it will start 
in 2012. Nevertheless, it leaves MS the possibility to keep coupled support for suckler cows and sheep 
meat where decoupling can have a strong impact in farmers' margins leading to economic and 
environmental impacts in areas where fe w or no economic alternatives exist.   
We would like to underline that after the Health Check more than 90% of direct support in the EC is 
decoupled.  
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 409 
 
 
 Question 26  
Page 82, § 156 
According to paragraph 156, in 2008 the EC adopted a General Block Exemption Regulation 
(GBER). The paragraph also states that the GB ER reduces the administrative burden for public 
authorities, the beneficiaries, and the Commission. 
 
Could EU please give more details on programm es related to research, innovation and regional 
development? 
 
Answer  
The General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER) reduces the administrative burden involved in 
granting state aid by increasing the number of categor ies of state aid which do not need to be notified 
to the Commission to 26 and by consolidating into  one text and harmonizing the rules previously 
existing in five separate Regulations. When all th e conditions announced in the Regulation are met, 
the aid can be granted immediately by the Member State without prior notification to the Commission. 
Member States only have to inform the Commission – using a simple information sheet – and only 
after having granted the aid. Aid measures not in cluded in the GBER may still be allowed but remain 
subject to the traditional notification requirement.  The 26 categories of state aid covered by the GBER are those that are of real benefit to job creation 
and economic growth, so the Regulation encourages Me mber States to better target their State aid to 
promote economic development without unduly distorting competition.  
 Among the categories of aid covered by th e GBER, there are severa l concerning research, 
development and innovation and regional development: 
 
• Aid for research and development projects, aid for technical feasibility studies, aid 
for industrial property right costs for SMEs, aid for young innovative enterprises, aid for innovation advisory services and for i nnovation support services, aid for the loan 
of highly qualified personnel, aid for research and development in the agricultural 
and fisheries sectors  
• Regional investment and employment aid, ai d for newly created sm all enterprises in 
assisted regions 
 
Outside this category is The European Framew ork Programme for Research and Development which 
uses community funds which are not considered to  constitute state aid. On the other hand the 
Framework Programme for Research and Developmen t which is entirely pre-competitive and based 
on scientific excellence, is in line with basic st ate aid rules, i.e. the framework for research 
development and innovation. 
 
Question 27  
Could EU please provide more information about the kind of aid the Member States are authorized to 
grant under GBER? 
 
Answer
 
Member States are authorized to grant the following types of aid under the General Block Exemption 
Regulation (GBER): 
 1) Regional aid  
• Regional investment and employment aid  
• Aid for newly created small enterprises; 
3) SME investment and employment aid WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 410  
 
 4) Aid for small enterprises newly created by female entrepreneurs; 
5) Aid for environmental protection 
• Investment aid enabling undertakings to  go beyond Community standards for 
environmental protection or increase the level of environmental protection 
• Aid for the acquisition of new transport vehicles which go beyond Community 
standards 
• Aid for early adoption of future Community standards for SMEs; 
• Environmental investment aid for energy saving measures 
• Environmental investment aid for high-efficiency cogeneration 
• Environmental investment aid for the promotion of energy from renewable 
resources 
• Aid for environmental studies 
• Aid in the form of reductions in environmental taxes 
6) Aid for consultancy in favour of SMEs and SME participation in fairs 
• Aid for SME participation in fairs, 
• Aid for consultancy in favour of SMEs 
7) Aid in the form of risk capital 8) Aid for research and development and innovation 
• Aid for research and development projects 
• Aid for technical feasibility studies 
• Aid for industrial property rights costs for SMEs 
• Aid for research and development in th e agricultural and fisheries sectors 
• Aid to young and innovative enterprises 
• Aid for innovation advisory service s and for innovation support services 
• Aid for loan of highly  qualified personnel 
9) Training aid 10) Aid for disadvantaged and disabled workers 
• Aid for the recruitment of disadvantag ed workers in the form of wage 
subsidies 
• Aid for the employment of disabled workers in the form of wage subsidies 
• Aid for compensating the additional costs of employing disabled workers 
 
To be authorized under the GBER, the aid measure must  satisfy all conditions that are laid down for 
the individual types of aid or aid schemes. These cond itions define the types of cost that are eligible 
for the aid measure, the percentage of the costs that  can be covered by the aid (intensity of the aid) 
and the maximum amount of the aid.  For more information, please refer to  the GBER under the following link: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/Le xUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L: 2008:214:0003:0047:PT:PDF  
 
Question 28 
Page 96, § 2 
In relation to paragraph 2, pg.96, could the EC please clarify: 
 
What are the products for which "product-specific support linked to production and/or prices, still 
exists, albeit at reduced levels"?  
 Are there plans to discontinue this kind of support?   
Why have export subsidies for sugar been suspended and not abolished, as they have been for fruits, 
vegetables and wine?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 411 
 
 
 Why were export subsidies for dairy pr oducts reinstated in January 2009? 
 
Answer  
(1) For the description the EC refers to notifications G/AG/N/EEC/58 and G/AG/N/EEC/17. 
Most of the coupled support described in tho se notifications has now been decoupled under the 
decisions of the Health Check (Regulation 73/2009). 
  We would like to underline that after the Hea lth Check more than 90% of direct support in the 
EC is decoupled. What after the Health Check has  remained coupled is not for matters relating to 
production, but rather for the maintenance of la ndscape especially where land abandonment is an 
imminent danger, notably suckler cow and sheep headage payments. 
 (2) Pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 73/ 2009, the payments related to the special 
premium and the slaughter premium for bovine animals shall be integrated into the single payment 
scheme from 2012 at the latest. The payments for the su ckler cows shall be inte grated into the Single 
Payment Scheme from 2010 where Member States decide  not to continue granting them as coupled 
payments. Where Member States decide to grant them as coupled payments, they may decide to set the 
part of the component of their national ceiling to be  used for these payments at a lower level than that 
decided in the previous period. The sheep and goat payments shall be integr ated into the Single 
Payment Scheme from 2010 where Member States decide  not to continue granting them as coupled 
payments. Where Member States decide to continue  granting them as coupled payments, they may 
decide to set the part of the component of their national ceiling to be used for these payments at a 
lower level than that decided in the previous period.   Support linked to prices consists of a rudi mentary public intervention system for cereals, 
dairy and beef. Its role is now limited to function unde r exceptional circumstances as a safety net.   
 
(3) The market measure to grant export subsidi es still exists therefore the export subsidies have 
been suspended rather than abolished.    (4) The EC reintroduced export subsidies as a result of the bad market situation with prices 
falling up to 60%, a result from shrinking demand, and, contrary to the situation in the EU, dairy 
production increases in certain competing exporting third countries. The decrease in world market 
prices could already be noted months before the introduction of export refunds which are deliberately 
set at a level which does not fully bridge the gap between EU prices and prices on the world market. 
In using export subsidies we resp ect our scheduled commitments u nder the WTO and therefore, these 
measures are not WTO inconsistent measures. The EC stands by its commitments to phase-out export 
subsidies by 2013 on condition of a successful completion of the DDA in which our trading 
partners will also have to discipline their export support programmes.  
 Question 29  
Page 108, § 38 
In relation to paragraph 38, pg.108, are there plans to eliminate or reduce the specific duties imposed on ethanol? Are there plans to convert those duties into ad valorem tariffs? 
 
Answer
 
Issues related to tariffs reduction and simplificati on are discussed under the market access pillar of 
the DDA negotiations. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 412  
 
 Question 30  
Page 108, § 39 
In relation to paragraph 39, pg.1 08, could the EC please clarify which Member States still provide 
production-linked payments to ‘suckler cows, ewes  and goats, as well as the slaughter premium for 
bovine animals’?  Answer
 
Overview of the implementation of direct payments under the CAP in Member States 
Version 1.1 July 2008  
MS Start 
SPS Regions Model 
SPS/SAPS Dairy 
decoupled Sectors remaining coupled 
and transitional coupled 
payments of the fruit & 
vegetable sector as of 2008 Optional Article 69 
implementation in % 
of the sector ceiling 
Belgium 2005 Zone Nord: 
Flanders + 
Brussels SPS historical 2006 Sucklercow premium 100% 
Slaughter premium calves 
100% Seeds (some species) 100%  
 2005 Zone Sud: 
Wallonia SPS historical 2006 Suckler cow premium 100% 
Seeds (some species) 100%  
Bulgaria   SAPS  F&V: Transitional soft fruit 
payments 100%  
Czech Republic   SAPS  Separate sugar payments 85% 
F&V: Separate payment for 
tomatoes intended for processing 100%  
Denmark 2005 one region SPS dynamic 
hybrid  2005 Special male bovine premium 
75% Sheep and goat premium 50%  
Germany 2005 Bundesländer 
(Berlin included in Brandenburg, 
Bremen in 
Lower Saxony and Hamburg in 
Schleswig-
Holstein) SPS dynamic 
hybrid moving to a flat rate  2005 Hops payments 25% 
Tobacco coefficient for decoupling: 0.4  
Estonia   SAPS    
Ireland 2005 - SPS historical 2005 None  
Greece 2006 - SPS historical 2007 Seeds 100% 
Olive oil sector: 2% 
deduction for the funding of 
working programmes established by producer organisations (Art 110 (i) of 
1782/2003 and Art. 8 of Reg. 
865/2003). Annex VII point H and I: 
tobacco and olive oil 
coefficient for decoupling: 1 F&V: 
Until end 2010: 30% of the 
envelope for tomatoes intended for processing 
Until end 2012: 60% of the 
envelope for citrus fruits intended for processing  2% for tobacco, 
 4% for olive oil,  
10% for sugar, 
10% for arable crops, 10% for the bovine sector, 
  5% for sheep and 
goat  
Spain 2006 - SPS historical 2006 Seeds 100% 
Arable crops 25% Sheep and goat premiums 
50% 
Suckler cow premium 100% Slaughter premium calves 
100% 
Slaughter premium bovine adults 40% 
Outermost regions 100% 
Tobacco coefficient for decoupling: 0.4 Olive oil coefficient for   5% for tobacco , 
10% for the cotton sector, 
10% for sugar, 
 7% for the bovine sector,  
10% for dairy 
payments  
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 413 
 
 
 MS Start 
SPS Regions Model 
SPS/SAPS Dairy 
decoupled Sectors remaining coupled 
and transitional coupled 
payments of the fruit & 
vegetable sector as of 2008 Optional Article 69 
implementation in % 
of the sector ceiling 
decoupling: 0.936 F&V:   Until end 2010: 50% 
of the envelope for tomatoes 
intended for processing Until end 2009: 100% for 
citrus fruits intended for 
processing 
France 2006 - SPS historical 2006 Arable crops 25% 
Sheep and goat premium 50% Suckler cow premium 100% 
Slaughter premium calves 
100% Slaughter premium bovine 
adults 40% 
Seeds (some species) 100% Outermost regions 100% 
Olive oil sector: 10% 
deduction for the funding of working programmes 
established by producer 
organisations (Art 110 (i) of 1782/2003 and Art. 8 of 
Reg. 865/2003). 
Hops payments 25% Annex VII point H and I: - olive oil coefficient for 
decoupling: 1 
- tobacco coefficient for decoupling: 0.4 
F&V:   Until end 2011: 50% 
for tomatoes intended for 
processing  
Until end 2010: 98% of 
national envelope for orchards producing prunes, 
peaches, and pears intended 
for processing  From 2011 until end 2012: 
75% of national envelope  for 
orchards producing prunes, peaches, and pears intended 
for processing   
Italy 2005 - SPS historical 2006 Seeds 100% 
Olive oil sector: 5% deduction for the funding of 
working programmes 
established by producer organisations (Art 110 (i) of 
1782/2003 and Art. 8 of 
Reg. 865/2003). Annex VII point H and I: 
- olive oil coefficient for 
decoupling is increased to 1 - tobacco coefficient for 
decoupling: 0.4 
- for the region Puglia,  decoupling coefficient for 
tobacco: 1 
F&V:   Until end 2010: 50% for tomatoes intended for 
processing 
Until end 2010: 100% for pears, peaches and prunes intended for processing. 
From 2011 until end 2012: 
75% of envelope for prunes 8% for sugar  
8% for the arable sector,  
7% for the bovine 
sector, 5% for sheep and 
goat  
 
Cyprus   SAPS  F&V:   Until end 2010: 100% 
of national envelope for citrus  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 414  
 
 MS Start 
SPS Regions Model 
SPS/SAPS Dairy 
decoupled Sectors remaining coupled 
and transitional coupled 
payments of the fruit & 
vegetable sector as of 2008 Optional Article 69 
implementation in % 
of the sector ceiling 
fruits;  Until end 2012: 75% of 
national envelope for citrus 
fruits 
Latvia   SAPS  Separate sugar payments 
100% F&V: Transitional soft fruit 
payment 100%  
Lithuania   SAPS  Separate sugar payments 
100% 
F&V: Transitional soft fruit 
payment 100%  
Luxemburg 2005 one region SPS static 
hybrid 2005 None  
Hungary   SAPS  Separate sugar payments 
100% 
F&V:   Separate F&V 
payments (tomatoes and other fruits) 100% 
Transitional soft fruit 
payment 100%  
 
Malta 2007 one region SPS regional   None 
  
Netherlands 2006 - SPS historical 2007 Slaughter premium calves 
100% 
Slaughter premium bovine 
adults 100% Seeds for fibre flax 100%  
Austria 2005 - SPS historical 2007 Suckler cow premium 100% 
Slaughter premium calves 
100% Slaughter premium bovine 
adults 40% 
Hops payment 25%  
Poland   SAPS  Separate sugar payments 
100% 
F&V:  Separate F&V payment for tomatoes, 
peaches and pears  100% 
  Transitional soft fruit payment  100%  
 
Portugal 2005 - SPS historical 2007 Suckler cow premium 100% 
Slaughter premium calves 100% 
Slaughter premium bovine 
adults 40% Sheep and goat premium 50% 
Seeds 100% 
Outermost regions 100% Tobacco coefficient for decoupling 0,5 
Olive oil coefficient for 
decoupling: 1 F&V: Until end 2011: 50% of 
envelope for tomatoes 
intended for processing 1% for arable crops, 
rice, bovine and ovine sectors 
10% for olive oil  
10% for sugar  
Romania   SAPS  Separate sugar payments 
100% 
F&V: Until end 2011: 50% of envelope for tomatoes 
intended for processing  
Slovenia 2007 one region SPS regional  Sp ecial male bovine premium 
75% 
Sheep and goat premium 50% 
Hops payment 25% 10 % for the bovine 
sector 
Slovakia    SAPS  Separate sugar payments 
100% 
F&V:  Separate F&V   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 415 
 
 
 MS Start 
SPS Regions Model 
SPS/SAPS Dairy 
decoupled Sectors remaining coupled 
and transitional coupled 
payments of the fruit & 
vegetable sector as of 2008 Optional Article 69 
implementation in % 
of the sector ceiling 
payments: 50% of the envelope for tomatoes 
intended for processing and 
100% of the envelope for fruits other than annual crops 
Transitional F&V payments : 
50% of envelope for tomatoes intended for processing 
Finland 2006 three regions 
(based on 
reference yield) SPS dynamic 
hybrid moving 
to a flat rate  2006 Sheep and goat premium 50% 
Special male bovine premium 
75% 
Seeds (timothy seed) 100% 2.1% for arable 
crops, 
10% for the bovine 
sector  
Sweden 2005 five regions 
(based on reference yield) SPS static 
hybrid 2005 Special male bovine premium 
74.55% 0.45% of total ceiling  
United Kingdom 2005 England normal SPS dynamic 
hybrid moving to a flat rate  2005 None  
 2005 England - 
moorland SPS dynamic 
hybrid moving to a flat rate   None  
 2005 England - SDA 
minus moorland SPS dynamic 
hybrid moving to a flat rate   None  
 2005 Scotland SPS historical   10% for the bovine 
sector  
 2005 Wales SPS historical  None  
 2005 Northern 
Ireland SPS static 
hybrid  None  
Abbreviations: SPS  Single Payment Scheme 
  SAPS Single Area Payment Scheme   F&V Fruit and Vegetables 
 
N.B.: Hybrid model consist of elements fr om the regional and the historical model 
 
Question 31  
Page 85, §164 On what grounds is the ‘Communication on an industrial property rights strategy for Europe’, which 
includes initiatives on enforcement, is binding for the EC Members? 
 
Answer
 
A Communication is a non-legislative document from the Commission addressed to the other 
European institutions and consultative bodies concern ed by the subject of the Communication. A 
Communication may review the state of play in orde r to develop a strategy and future initiatives in a 
particular policy field. Actions may therefore relate to  Member States in areas of their competence or 
responsibility. Since a Communication is not legally-bi nding legislation, points addressed to Member 
States will be more of an advisory nature, although they could remind Member States of earlier legal 
requirements, for example, the transposition of a Directive.  
 
Question 32  
Page 86, § 168 
please provide examples on how a registration of a trade mark may be refused when the sign is against public policy? How is it compatible with the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention for 
the Protection of Industrial Property? 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 416  
 
 Answer
 
Examples of trade marks not to be registered as  being contrary to public policy pursuant to 
Article 7(1)(f) of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/ 94 ('CTMR') are signs which glorify violence or 
invite to that, or which glorify punishable offences.  This is in conformity with Art. 6 quinquies, B No 3 
of the Paris Convention and Art.  15(2) of the TRIPS Agreement. 
 
Question 33  
Page 86, § 169 
Paragraph 169, states that the ‘rights conferred star t on the date of publication of registration of the 
trade mark (Article 9), and are valid for ten year s (renewable for an indefinite number of ten-year 
periods) from the date of filing of the application (Article 46)’. If so, please provide the actual time 
average for deciding on a trade mark application. 
 
Answer  
The current average time taken to regist er a Community trade mark is 13 months. 
 
Question 34  
Page 86, § 169 
Please also confirm that the term of protection mentioned in paragraph 169, including the way it 
should be counted, is also valid for an international application that is filed within the Madrid System 
for the International Registration of Marks. If so, is it correct to affirm that the first period of the term 
of effective protection will be shorter than ten years due to the difference of time between the 
application and the registration? 
 
Answer  
According to Art. 6(1) of the Madrid Protocol th e registration of a mark at the International Bureau 
is effected for a period of ten years. Art. 146(1)  of the CTMR provides that an international 
registration designating the European Community shall,  from the date of its registration pursuant to 
Art. 3(4) of the Madrid Protocol or from the subsequent designation of the European Community 
pursuant to Art. 3ter(2) of the Madrid Protocol , have the same effect as an application for a 
Community trade mark. According to Art. 146(2), if no refusal is notified in accordance with Art. 5(1) 
and (2) of the Madrid Protocol or if any such refusal  is withdrawn, the international registration of a 
mark designating the European Community shall, fr om the date referred to in paragraph 1, have the 
same effect as the registration of a mark as a Commun ity trade mark. It is therefore indeed "correct to 
affirm that the first period of the term of e ffective protection will be shorter than ten years". 
 Question on unregistered design: According to Art. 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 an 
unregistered Community design confers on its holder the exclusive right to use it and to prevent any 
third party not having his consent from using it (i n particular, the making, offering, putting on the 
market, importing, exporting or using of a product in wh ich the design is incorporated or to which it 
is applied, or stocking such a product for tho se purposes), but only under the condition that the 
contested use results from copying the protected design. 
 
Question 35  
Page 87, §§ 173, 174, 176 
Concerning paragraphs 173, 174 and 176, please clarif y what are the rights for an unregistered design. 
 
Answer
 
According to Art. 19(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 an unregistered Community design 
confers on its holder the exclusive right to use it and to prevent any third party not having his consent 
from using it (in particular, the making, offering,  putting on the market, impor ting, exporting or using 
of a product in which the design is incorporated or to which it is applied, or stocking such a product 
for those purposes), but only under the condition that  the contested use results from copying the  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 417 
 
 
 protected design. Under Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002, an unregistered Community design 
meeting the requirements of novelty  and having individual character is  protected for a period of three 
years as from the date on which the design was fi rst made available to the public within the 
Community. 
 
Question 36  
Page 88, § 180 
What is the maximum time to provide the translati on into one of the three working languages of the 
EPC after filing an application in any language  different from English, French, or German? 
 
Answer  
The time to file a translation into an EPO language is set at 2 months (rule 6(1) EPC). If the 
translation not been filed in due time, the applicant will be informed by the EPO, and is given 
2 further months to correct th e difficiency under rule 58 EPC.  
 
Question 37  
What are the differences in nati onal legislations that are impedi ng the functioning of the internal 
market? 
 
Answer  
In the field of patent, the absence of a Commun ity title and the consequent lack of harmonisation 
impede the complete functioning of the internal market. However, the EC continue to monitor the 
correct application of the transposition of the legislati on in this field when a Community legislation is 
in place (e.g.  Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions). 
 
Question 38  
What is the actual backlog for patents in the EPO  and what is the actual average for the decision on 
patent applications? 
 
Answer  
Information on patent applications at the EPO c an be found in their Annual Reports available on 
their website at www.epo.org . The EPO is not an EU organisation and the European Commission is 
not responsible compiling or publishing data on EPO backlogs and patent pendency times. 
 
Question 39  
Page 89, §185 
Concerning paragraph 185, page 89, how does the EC proceed in order to collect the equitable 
remuneration from farmers and redistribute it to plant varieties patent right holders? 
 
Answer  
The EC does not proceed directly in order to co llect the equitable remuneration from farmers and 
redistribute it to plant varieties patent right hold ers: it is a matter of exclusive responsibility of the 
right holders themselves. 
 
The level of the equitable remuneration to be paid to a right holder may form the object of a contract between the right holder and the farmer concerned. Where such contract has not been concluded or 
does not apply, the level of remuneration shall be  sensibly lower than the amount charged for the 
licensed production of propagating material of the lowest category qualified for official certification, 
of the same variety in the same area. 
 The right holder may determine the date and the mann er of payment. However, he shall not determine 
a date of payment which is earlier than the date on which the obligation for the farmer has come to WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 418  
 
 existence, i.e, at the time when actually the farmer makes use of the product of the harvest for 
propagating purposes in his fields. 
 
Question 40 
Page 90, § 190 
Is there any protection for third users related to ex ceptions or limitations to the titleholder rights when 
it is established that EC ‘Membe rs must provide legal protection against the circumvention of any 
effective technological measure used to prevent in fringement of the rights of a copyright holder’? 
 
Answer
 
With respect to the protection of technological measu res, Article 6(4) of the 2001/29 Copyright in the 
Information Society Directive states that Member States shall take appropriate measures to ensure 
that rightholders make available to the beneficiary of an exception or limitation provided for in 
national law in accordance with seven public policy or public security exceptions the means of 
benefitting from that exception or limitation to th e extent necessary to benefit from that exception or 
limitation and where that beneficiary has legal access to  the protected work or subject matter.  These 
seven exceptions apply to areas such as for teaching or for the benefit of the disabled.  
 Question 41 Page 91, table III. 14 
Concerning table III.14, please confirm that the term of protection for cinematographic or audiovisual 
works is seventy years after the d eath of the principal director. In that case, please confirm that the 
death of the author of the screenplay and/or the author of the dialogue, which are designated co-authors of the cinematographic or audiovisual work, does not affect the term of protection. 
 
Answer
 
According to Article 2(2) of the Term Directive 2006/116/EC "The term of protection of 
cinematographic or audiovisual works shall expire 70 years after the death of th e last of the following 
persons to survive, whether or not these persons a re designated as co-authors: the principal director, 
the author of the screenplay, the author of the dialogue and the composer of music specifically 
created for use in the cinematographic or audiovisual wo rk".  It is therefore clear that the death of the 
author of the screenplay and/or the author of the dialogue could have an effect on the term of 
protection. 
 Question 42  
Page 92, § 194 
Please clarify the differences between the objects of  the protection related to the protection by 
designation of origin (PDO) and the protection by geographical indication (PGI). Please also clarify 
the differences, if any, between their rights. 
 
Answer
 
The scope of protection for protected designatio ns of origin (PDO) and protected geographical 
indications (PGI) is the same. There is no differen ce between rights attributed to PDOs or PGIs. 
Nevertheless, the European symbols which may be u sed in labelling are different in colour: yellow 
and red for PDO and yellow and blue for PGI. 
 
Question 43  
Page 92, § 195 
Paragraph 195 states that are only three third-country  geographical indications registered in the EC 
(from Colombia, Brazil and the United States). How many applications are pending in the EC for non-EC Members? 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 419 
 
 
 Answer  
As far as Regulation (EC) No. 510/2006 is concern ed, the pending applications for "third country 
names" are the following: Gruyère, Dongshan Bai Lu Sun, Guanxi Mi You, Jinxiang Da Suan, Lixian Ma Shan Yao, Longjing Cha, Longkou Fen Si, Pinggu Da Tao, Shaanxi Ping Guo, Yancheng Long Xia, Zhenjiang Xiang Cu, Darjeeling, Kangra Tea, Thung Kula Rong Hai Thai Hom Mali Rice. 
 
There is no pending application from third countries for wines or spirits. 
 
Page 93, para. 197 
Intellectual property rights (IPR) 
Enforcement  
"197. Commission Regulation No. 1891/2004 of 21 October 2004 lays down provisions to 
implement Council Regulation No. 1383/2003, which c oncerns IPR enforcement at the EC's external 
borders.  It established, inter alia , definitions of who may represent the holders of a right, as well as 
proof of ownership of an IPR; it also set time lim its and procedures for the exchange of information 
between Member States and the Commission.  Duri ng the period under review, there were no changes 
in EC's IPR enforcement legislation, apart from the amendment to Commission Regulation No. 
1891/2004 to take into account the recent enlargemen t. The 2004 Directive on the civil enforcement 
of IPR has been implemented in almost all Memb er States (Sweden and Luxembourg are still in the 
process of adoption). In 2009, the Commission will draw up a report on the application of this 
Directive, including an assessment of the effectiv eness of the measures taken. The proposal for a 
Directive to combat intellectual property offen ces adopted by the Commission in April 2006, is 
pending in the Council."  
Question 44  
Could you explain if any right accorded by EC rules, or by EC Member States’ rules, governing 
intellectual property may be affected by goods in trans it in the EC? If yes, what are the rights affected 
and how are they affected by goods that are not in troduced in the EC market? If no, why is Regulation 
No. 1383/2003 designed to be also applicable to goods  in transit suspected of infringing intellectual 
property rights? 
 
Answer
 
Council Regulation (EC) No. 1383/2003 applies to customs action against goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights. The specific scope of the Regulation in the field of 
customs where goods are in transit in the EC in rela tion to the intellectual property rights listed in the 
Regulation should be distinguished from the domai ns of other Community provisions concerning 
intellectual property rights.  
Question 45 
Page 93, §197 
Concerning Chapter 3, paragraph 197, page 93, dealing with ´Commission Regulation No. 1891/2004 
of 21 October 2004 that lays down provisions to implement Council Regulation No. 1383/2003, 
which concerns IPR enforcement at the EC's external borders. Taking into account the WTO 
framework, Brazil would seek some clarification on the international legal basis of these provisions 
and the impact of the actions taken on products in  transit for public policies such as public health 
policies?  Answer
 
The EU has implemented various legal provisions to facilitate the access to medicines. It has 
reaffirmed its attachment to the Doha Declarati on on the TRIPS agreement and Public Health by 
implementing the waiver decision on compulsory  licensing into Community legislation and by WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 420  
 
 accepting (in November 2007) the Protocol amending the TRIPS Agreement, ahead of most WTO 
Members including most DCs.  However, EU Member States Customs Authorities are fu lly entitled, including from the point of view 
of international law, to inspect goods in transit suspected of infringing IP rights. 
 
EU legislation (Council Regulation 1383/2003) provides for customs to detain goods suspected of infringing certain intellectual property rights. Regul ation 1383/2003 is fully in line with WTO/TRIPS 
requirements, in terms of scope and coverage of customs intervention.  
TRIPS foresees that border enforcement measures may apply not only to imports of goods infringing 
any IP right (including patents), but also to g oods introduced into the customs territory or leaving 
that territory (including export, goods placed under a suspensive regime, goods placed in a free zone 
or free warehouse and goods in the process of being re-exported). 
 
Question 46  
Page 93, §198 
Is there any explanation for the reduction of the 2007  seizure (38%) of counterfeit and pirated articles 
considering the 2006 seizure? 
 
Answer
 
There was an overall reduction in the total quantitiy of articles seized.  The statistics showed a 
significant reduction in two categories, cigarett es and CDs/DVDs. All other sectors showed increases, 
notably articles for personal care, medicines, toys,  electrical and computer equipment. The overall 
number of cases, that is to say, the interventions  made by customs in relation to suspected IPR 
infringements, also showed a significant increase of 17%.  It is therefore believed that the overall 
decrease in items set against the number of actions ca n be attributed to a growing number of smaller 
quantities intercepted mostly in air and postal-based transport modes. 
 
QUESTION 47 
Page 94, §199 
At Chapter 3, paragraph 199, page 94 of the Re port is mentioned that seizures on medicines have 
increased 51% compared with 2006. Brazil would like  to know if this amount includes medicines in 
transit over European borders. 
 
Answer  
The increase of medicines by 51% is an overall figure and contains interceptions in all customs 
procedures like procedures at import, export, tr ansit and warehouse. There are no figures available 
that specify the increase for each  Customs procedure separately. 
 
Question 48  
Page 94, §201 
At Chapter 3. paragraph 201, page 94 of the Report mention the ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade 
Agreement). It was mentioned that this Agreem ent has three key components: (i) international 
cooperation, principally between customs and enforc ement agencies; (ii) enforcement practices; and 
(iii) legal framework.   What is the international legal framework consider ed for the negotiations? Which are the enforcement 
agencies involved in this process? What is the concept of counterfeited product adopted in such 
Agreement?  How the Transparency Principle is applied in  the ACTA negotiations? The provisions of the 
Agreement are covered under WTO oblig ations? If so, in which manner?   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 421 
 
 
 Answer  
ACTA is being negotiated outside of the framework of  any IPR international organisation. It is being 
negotiated as a free-standing agreement between: Australia, Canada, the Eu ropean Union, Japan, 
Korea, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Sing apore, Switzerland and the United States. 
 
ACTA is still being negotiated. The need or not fo r a possible definition of "counterfeiting" is still 
under discussion among the ACTA parties.  Regarding the transparency of ACTA negotiati ons, The EU and other partners announced their 
intention to start negotiations of ACTA on 23 Oc tober 2007, in well publicised press releases. Since 
the EU has publicly addressed the ACTA negotia tions on numerous occa sions, including at the 
European Parliament and in several well atte nded seminars/conferences. The EU organised a 
stakeholders' consultation meetings  on 23 June 2008 and on 21 April 2009, in Brussels, open to all – 
industry, citizens, media and representatives of third countries – and attended by more than 100 participants.  US, Australia, Canada, New Zeal and and other ACTA partners did the same. Civil 
society input will is being taken into consideration during the negotiations. 
 Press releases have also b een issued after each of the nego tiating rounds. On 6 April 2009, the EU, 
together with the other ACTA partners, issued a Summary of key elements under discussion in the on-
going ACTA negotiations. This paper is  intended to clarify the objectives of the proposed Agreement 
It provides a detailed description of the elements suggested by the parties under the different headings 
and highlights the main issues that may constitute the body of ACTA. Documents available at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property/acta_en.htm 
 
Question 49  
Pages 93-95, §§ 197-204 
Is there any EC regulation related to ex offici o action for customs authorities due to a supposed 
violation of intellectual property rights? If so, in  which intellectual property areas are EC Members 
allowed or obliged to act ex officio: copyright,  trade mark, patent, industrial design, geographical 
indication, plant varieties, layout of integrated circuits etc.? 
 
Answer
 
EU legislation (Council Regulation (EC) No  1383/2003) provides for Customs authorities the 
possibility to suspend the release of the goods or deta in them in the case they have a suspicion of an 
infringement of an intellectual property right and before an application has been lodged by a right 
holder. Within 3 working days of the receipt of the notification of the detention or suspension to the 
right holder, an application for action must be su bmitted. If within these period no application for 
action is submitted the goods will be released. The po ssibility to act ex-officio concerns to all goods 
suspected of infringing an intellectual property right as provided for in Regulation 1383/2003.  
 Question 50  
If an EC Member customs acts ex officio due to a supposed violation of intellectual property rights, 
what is the liability of the titleholder whenever a re tention, seizure or forfeiture is carried out ex 
officio? 
 
Answer
 
In accordance with EU legislation (Council Regulat ion 1383/2003) any ex-officio detention must be 
followed by the submission of an application for ac tion by the right holder (see also the reply to 
question 47) or the goods will be released by Customs.  
 When submitting an application for action the applic ant must also submit a declaration as required 
by Article 6. In this declaration the right holder accepts liability towards th e persons involved in a 
situation where goods suspected of infringing an inte llectual property right are detained or release is WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 422  
 
 suspended, in the event that procedures are discon tinued owing to an act or omission by the right 
holder or in the event that the goods in question are subsequently found not to infringe an intellectual 
property right. 
 
Question 51  
If a customs authority acts due to a supposed violati on of intellectual property rights by demand of the 
titleholder or with its consent, are the EC Memb ers applying the right to provide a security or 
equivalent assurance sufficient to protect the defe ndant and the competent authorities and to prevent 
abuse? 
 
Answer
 
As indicated in the reply to question 48, the right holder, together with an application for action, must 
submit a declaration in which the right holder accepts certain liability.  Question 52  
Is there any EC regulation concerning retention, seizu re and/or forfeiture of in transit goods that are 
alleged to violate any intellectual property rights? If so, please explain how it is supposed to function."  
Answer
 
TRIPS foresees that border enforcement measures may apply not only to imports of goods infringing 
any IP right (including patents), but also to g oods introduced into the customs territory or leaving 
that territory (including export, goods placed under a suspensive regime, goods placed in a free zone 
or free warehouse and goods in the process of being re-exported).  Article 58 TRIPS foresees that Members have the possi bility to require their co mpetent authorities to 
act upon their own initiative (ex officio action) in respect of goods suspected of infringing an 
intellectual property right.  EU legislation (Council Regulation 1383/2003) provides for customs to act ex officio at import, 
export, or re-export but also when goods entering or  leaving the customs territory or when goods are 
placed under a suspensive regime or placed in a fee zone or free warehouse, in case of goods 
suspected of infringing an intellectual property rights.  
 Hence, regulation 1383/2003 is fully in line w ith WTO/TRIPS requirements, in terms of scope, 
coverage and ex officio actions of customs intervention. 
 
Question 53 
TRIPS Article 51 requires WTO members to enable a right holder to lodge an application in writing 
with competent authorities for suspending the impor tation of goods suspected of violating trademark 
or copyrights. Nevertheless, EC customs legi slation (Council Regulation n.º 1383/2003) allows 
customs authorities to take ex officio action to  detain and seize goods in transit suspected of 
infringing any IP rights. 
 
Could the EC explain how Council Regulation n.º 1383 /2003 would be compatible with EC’s and its 
member-states commitments under TRIPS and the GATT ’94?   
 
Answer
 
Part III Section 4 of the TRIPS Agreement on Speci al Requirements Related to border Measures sets 
out minimum standards on customs enforcement. This is  clearly reflected in Article 51 which states 
that "Members may, but shall not be obliged to, implement in their law more extensive protection than 
is required by this Agreement." More explicitly on customs enforcement, footnote 13 allows WTO 
Members to apply customs procedures to imports of goods put on the market in another country by or  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 423 
 
 
 with the consent of the right holder, or to goods  in transit. Moreover, GATT rules recognize the rights 
of WTO Members to adopt measures of customs en forcement, notably, to secure protection of IP 
rights. Regulation 1383/2003 is based on the above- mentioned rules and is therefore fully compatible 
with EC's and its Member States' commitmen ts under the TRIPS Agreement and the GATT 1994. 
 
Question 54  
Could the EC clarify how an EC customs agent is cap able of identifying a suspicion of violation of a 
patent of medicines? 
 
Answer  
The volume of goods that customs handle is substan tial and has been steadily increasing. Although all 
goods that enter or leave the EU are subject to examinations, customs can only examine a small part 
and therefore rely on the use of risk management methods with computer-based and manual selection methods. The risk assessment process relies heavily on the information given by right holders in their 
applications for action. In additi on to existing information on goods, which is certainly important, it 
is also very important for customs to have in formation on production, transport and physical 
characteristics concerning th e original goods. Once a shipment has been selected, a physical 
examination, including the taking of samples for analysis, will be the best method to determine whether the goods might infringe an IPR. 
 
Question 55 
Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on TRIPS a nd Public Health addresses the situation of WTO 
members with insufficient or no manufacturing capacity  in the pharmaceutical sector. The Decision of 
the General Council of 30 August 2003 (the so-calle d "waiver") allows a member with insufficient or 
no manufacturing capacity to import medicines fr om another member under a compulsory cross-
licensing arrangement. 
 
Could the EC explain how Council Regulation n.  º 1383/2003 would not hinder or create an 
impediment to the effective use by developing and least-developed countries of the flexibility foreseen in paragraph 6 of the D oha Declaration on TRIPS and Public  Health and in the Decision of 
the General Council of 30 August 2003? 
 
Answer
 
Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement provides flexib ility for governments to ma ke exceptions to patent 
holders’ rights, as long as certain conditions are fulfilled. For pharmaceutical patents, the flexibility 
has been clarified by the 2001 Doha Declara tion on TRIPS and Public Health, which was 
subsequently put into practice in 2003 with th e referenced General Council Decision enabling 
countries that cannot manufacture the pharmaceutic als themselves, to import pharmaceuticals made 
under compulsory licence. The EC pl ayed an active role in the adoption of said Decision, and a no 
less instrumental role in bringing about a permane nt solution in the form of the Protocol of 
Amendment adopted by the General Council on 6 De cember 2005. Furthermore, the EC was amongst 
the first WTO Members to implement the 2003 Deci sion in its legal order through the adoption of 
Regulation (EC) No 816/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 May 2006 on 
compulsory licensing of patents relating to the manu facture of pharmaceutical products for export to 
countries with public health problems (OJ L 157, 9. 6.2006, p.1). Article 13(2) of Regulation No 
816/2006 explicitly exempts pharmaceuticals that a re merely in transit through the EC and were 
manufactured under a compulsory licence granted pursuant to the 2003 General Council Decision and/or the Regulation itself from customs enforcement procedures in the EC. There is consequently no 
impediment in EC law to the effective use of th e flexibilities in paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration 
on TRIPS and Public Health and in the 2003 Decision of the General Council. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 424  
 
 Question 56  
Does the EC plan to review its customs legisl ation on IP rights enforcement (Council Regulation 
No 1383/2003) to bring it in line with the GATT ’94 and the TRIPS Agreement?  
Answer
 
As indicated in the reply to question 51, the EC  considers that the Council Regulation No. 1383/2003 
is in line with the GATT '94 and the TRIPS Agreemen t and does not therefore need to be reviewed for 
that purpose.  PANAMA
 
 
Informe de la Secretaría (WT/TPR/S/214) 
 OBSERVACIONES RECAPITULATIVAS; Numeral 1) El entorno económico  
Question 1 El párrafo 1 señala: La tasa de crecimiento del PI B real de las Comunidades Europeas (CE) alcanzó 
un 3 por ciento medio anual durante el período 20 06-2007 pero, según las estimaciones, cayó al 1 por 
ciento en 2008, debido en parte a la crisis fi nanciera mundial (y la consiguiente desaceleración 
económica) registrada en el segundo semestre del año.  Si bien la moderación del crecimiento tenía 
una base amplia, los resultados a nivel nacional sigu ieron mostrando una relativa dispersión.  A raíz 
de un aumento de los ingresos públicos y una disminuc ión de los gastos derivada, entre otras cosas, de 
las reformas de los sistemas de pensiones llevadas a cabo en varios Estados mi embros, el déficit fiscal 
de las CE, como porcentaje del PIB, bajó del 1,4 por ciento en 2006 al 0,9 por ciento en 2007 (los 
mejores resultados fiscales de las CE en muchos años), pero en 2008 se situará en el 2 por ciento, 
según las estimaciones.  Parece que sigue siendo necesario esforzarse más en hacer frente a las 
preocupaciones relativas a la sostenibilidad fiscal a la rgo plazo, en particular teniendo en cuenta los 
elevados costos de las medidas previstas para  responder a la desaceleración económica mundial.  
 ¿Podrían las CE suministrar información relativa a la Inversión Extranjera Directa (IED) destinada 
para América Latina, especialmente a Ce ntroamérica, en los últimos 5 años? 
 
Answer
 
EU* FDI Inflows and Outflows (millions of euro)  
 Flows Partners 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 
 Outflows Extra EU* 135.873 142.278 239.454 317.472 484.197 
  Latin America 5.220 19.720 13.038 17.152 25.306 
  Central America -6.587 36.068 6.104 36.582 97.286 
 Inflows Extra EU* 125.323 58.286 129.167 201.297 360.106 
  Latin America 296 5.534 4.785 2.006 4.504 
   Central America 7.341 -629 2.044 24.431 63.330 
 Source: Eurostat (NewCronos)      
 * EU25 (2003), EU27 (2004-2007)      
        
 Latin America:  Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Cost a Rica, Cuba, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, 
Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Paraguay , El Salvador, Uruguay, Venezuela  
 Central America: Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados , Belize, Bermuda, British Virgin islands, Cayman 
Isles, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominica, Dominican Republic, El Sal vador, Grenada, Guatemala, Haiti,  Honduras, Jamaica, Mexico, 
Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, Nicaragua, Panama, Saint Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent, Trinidad and Tobago, Turks an d 
Caicos Islands, Virgin Isles  
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 425 
 
 
 EL ENTORNO ECONÓMICO; Numeral 4) Perspectivas 
 Question 2 
En el párrafo 4 se indica lo siguiente: En respuest a a la actual crisis económica y financiera, el 26 de 
noviembre de 2008 la Comisión dio a conocer su Plan  de recuperación económica, basado, entre otras 
cosas, en un impulso presupuestario inmediato de 200. 000 millones de euros (1,5 por ciento del PIB 
de las CE), constituido por 170.000 millones de eu ros proporcionados por los Estados miembros y 
30.000 millones de euros financiados por las CE.  Además, el Banco Europeo de Inversiones (BEI) 
aumentará su nivel anual de financiación en unos 30.000 millones de euros durante el período 2009-
2010, y también está previsto que el Banco Europe o de Reconstrucción y Desarrollo (BERD) añada 
otros 500 millones de euros al año a su nivel actual de financiación en los nuevos Estados miembros.  
El Plan se inscribe en el marco del Pacto de Es tabilidad y Crecimiento y fue aprobado por el Consejo 
Europeo los días 11 y 12 de diciembre de 2008. De ntro del plan de recuperación económica, aparte 
del impulso presupuestario y del aumento en las i nversiones, se tiene prevista alguna modificación a 
los aranceles de importación de las CE, a fin de hacerle frente a la crisis económica y financiera a 
nivel mundial. 
 
Answer
 
International coordinated fiscal stimulus measures are needed to overcome the crisis. The European 
Economic Recovery Programme (ERP) is putting in place a co-ordinated fiscal stimulus equivalent in 
2009 and 2010 to 3.3% of GDP (with automatic stabilisers). Most of the measures aim to promote 
demand via income support programmes and the laun ching of new public infrastructure projects. 
However some measures target temporary support to the sectors that have been the hardest hit, 
namely the banking and the car sectors. Despite the seriousness of the situation and the urgency for 
action, the EU does not compromise the need for clear rules in designing these sectoral support 
packages to ensure that they as least distortive of competition as possible and do not create barriers 
to trade. The ERP favours horizontal interventions and includes guidelines for the design of measures 
that aim to minimize the distortive effects on markets functioning, notably:    
1. Prohibition of national campaigns promo ting or inciting the purchase of national 
products, services or capital; 
2. Avoidance of measures aiming to award public procurement contracts to tenders 
offering/using national products; 
3. Avoidance of restrictive conditions in tax benefits schemes or subsidies schemes; 
 
REGÍMENES DE COMERCIO E INVERSIÓN; Numeral 5) Acuerdos comerciales; romanito i) Panorama general 
 
Question 3 
El párrafo 24 dice lo siguiente: Durante el período objeto de examen, las CE prosiguieron su proceso 
de ampliación, con la adhesión de Bulgaria y Ru mania en enero de 2007.  Las CE siguieron siendo 
uno de los participantes fundamentales en la OMC y una gran fuerza impulsora de las negociaciones 
del Programa de Doha para el Desarrollo (PDD) .  Las CE han declarado que, siempre que el 
contenido global del paquete sea ac eptable, estarían dispuestas a reducir en general las subvenciones a 
la agricultura que distorsionan el comercio hasta un 80 por ciento, eliminar las subvenciones a la 
exportación para 2013 y recortar significativamente sus aranceles medios.  Con respecto al AMNA, las CE han aceptado los actuales textos de negoc iación como base para un acuerdo, con menos 
recortes y margen para proteger los productos sensi bles para los países en desarrollo.  Las CE han 
subrayado la importancia de alcanzar un resultado sustantivo tanto con los servicios como con las 
indicaciones geográficas (registro y extensión) si el contenido global del paquete resulta aceptable.  
En el contexto del actual deterioro de la situaci ón económica, las CE han destacado la importancia de 
Doha como el mejor instrumento de políticas para impedir el proteccionismo comercial. Las CE han 
manifestado su disposición para re ducir las subvenciones a la agricu ltura y eliminar las subvenciones WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 426  
 
 a la exportación, siempre y cuando el contenido global del paquete de Doha sea  aceptable.  ¿Qué 
comprende para las CE el concepto de "paquete acep table" en el marco de las negociaciones de Doha? 
 
Answer
 
We do not feel this question should be answered in the TPR context, while the DDA negotiations are 
ongoing. 
 The EC is committed to the 'Doha Development Agenda' negotiations wh ich aim at further 
liberalising trade, substantially cutting trade dist orting agricultural suppor t and eliminating trade 
distorting export competition practices.  
 
POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS; Numeral 1) Introducción 
 Question 4 
El párrafo 4 indica que: Aún está en marcha la armo nización de los requisitos técnicos (incluidos los 
reglamentos técnicos, las normas y las medidas sanitar ias y fitosanitarias) entre los Estados miembros.  
No ha habido ningún cambio importante en los regímen es de las CE en relación con las prohibiciones, 
las restricciones o las licencias de exportación desde el anterior examen de sus políticas comerciales.  
Se requiere una autorización o licencia de export ación para los bienes culturales y determinados 
productos agropecuarios y para controlar las export aciones de productos y tecnologías de doble uso.  
Las CE siguen proporcionando subvenciones a algunos  productos agrícolas.  Los programas de 
ayudas y subvenciones (tanto los de la Comunidad como los de los Estados miembros) notificados a 
la OMC podrían en buena parte agruparse como si gue:  medidas estructural es;  política agrícola 
común (PAC);  programas industriales;  y otros programas como los de ayuda a las PYME, a las empresas conjuntas, y a la pesca y la acuicultura.  Las dos principales esferas de gasto en 2003-2004 
fueron la agricultura y las operaciones estructurales, que representaron el 44 y el 33 por ciento de los 
compromisos financieros de las CE, respectivamente. ¿Qué plazo tienen previsto las CE para 
armonizar las normas técnicas y las normas que regul an las medidas sanitari as y fitosanitarias entre 
los Estados Miembros? 
 
Answer
 
Harmonisation of health and phytosanitary measur es is an on-going process. There is not delay for 
completion.  
 
Question 5 
El párrafo 5 establece que: En 2004 se promulgó la  legislación sobre contratación pública a fin de 
simplificar y flexibilizar más el marco jurídico y adaptarlo a la era electrónica.  No ha habido cambios 
importantes en el régimen de las CE en materia de competencia.  El régimen de derechos de 
propiedad intelectual se rige en las CE tanto por la legislación comunitaria como por la legislación de los Estados miembros.  Las CE cuentan con un amplio  cuerpo legislativo de propiedad intelectual que 
es objeto de frecuentes modificaciones para armonizar la protección en la Comunidad y procurar que el mercado interno funcione mejor.  Se espera si mplificar el proceso de obtención de la protección 
mediante un nuevo marco jurídico de protección de pa tentes.  Se ha modificado la reglamentación en 
materia de marcas de fábrica o de comercio y de obtenciones vegetales y se han refundido en una sola 
ley la legislación relacionada con el plazo de protección de los der echos de autor y derechos conexos 
y los derechos de alquiler y préstamo.  Se han promulgado nuevos reglamen tos para proteger las 
indicaciones geográficas de los vinos y las bebidas espirituosas.  
¿Las CE podrían explicar en qué forma esta nue va legislación sobre contratación pública ha 
simplificado y flexibilizado el marco jurídico para adaptarlo a la era electrónica? 
 
¿Podrían explicar si ya se promulgó este nuevo ma rco jurídico de protección de patentes y en qué 
consiste el mismo?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 427 
 
 
 ¿Podrían explicar en qué cons isten estos nuevos reglamentos para proteger las indicaciones 
geográficas de los vinos y bebidas espirituosas? 
 
Answer  
(1) Directives 2004/17/EC and 2004/18/EC  regulate the use of electronic means so as to ensure 
that the tools used do not have any discriminatory effect against the economic operators, that they are 
generally available to the public and compatible  with information and communication technology 
generally used. When using electronic means, the pr ocuring entity must guarantee that the integrity 
and confidentiality of the requests for participation and tenders are preserved.  
 
 Also, the Directives include new award tec hniques such as electronic auctions and dynamic 
purchases systems. According to the specific provisions of the Directiv es, they both shall be used in 
full compliance with the principles of transparen cy and non-discrimination.  Electronic auctions are a 
new and entirely electronic stage in an award procedu re that allow purchasers to request suppliers to 
improve their initial offer, which must have been evaluated fully be fore the start of the auction, in 
respect of certain aspects, in particular the price.  In addition, the Directives offer the possibility to 
purchasers to set up a dynamic purchasing system. This new and flexible procurement instrument 
must be entirely electronic. It is set up followi ng an open award procedure at the end of which the 
successful bidders are admitted to the system for its duration (maximum 4 years ). Before any specific 
purchase, the procuring entity sha ll publish a simplified tender notice in order to allow newcomers to 
enter the system. Once successful newcomers have entered the system, buyers invite all economic 
operators who are part of the system at that point in time to present an offer fo r the specific purchase.  
 (2) The Commission adopted a Communication "E nhancing the patent system in Europe" in 
April 2007 COM(2008) 165 final, which proposed ne w ideas on the litigation system for patents in 
Europe and indicated ways forward to resolv e outstanding issue on the Community patent. 
Discussions since then have taken place between  Member States based on working documents from 
the Presidency, and the Commission has come forwar d in March 2009 with a Recommendation to the 
Council for the Commission to open negotiations for an Agreement on unified patent litigation system SEC (2009) 330 final. Significant progress has been made over the past two years, but there is no agreement yet between Member States on a new legal framework for patents involving the Community 
patent. 
 
(3) For wines, the Regulation (EC) 479/2008 establishes definitions and procedures for the registration of PDOs and PGIs. This procedu re foresees a national phase of recognition of the 
PDO/PGIs and then a Community phase which includes an examination of the validity of the 
PDO/PGIs and an objection procedure. It is al so possible to amend the specifications of the 
PDO/PGIs, and cancel a PDO/PGI already re gistered. Rules of homonymy, trademarks and 
protection are established.    For spirits the Regulation (CE) 110/2008 estab lishes a very similar system for geographical 
indications. 
 
Question 6 El párrafo 11 indica que: El Código Aduanero de l as CE, que es vinculante para todos los Estados 
miembros y prevalece sobre cualquier legislación naci onal que entre en conflicto con él, constituye la 
base para lograr la uniformidad en las cuestion es aduaneras;  el código y sus disposiciones de 
aplicación establecen los derechos y obligaciones de las autoridades aduaneras.  La legislación 
aduanera nacional sólo se aplica cuando no existe un a normativa de las CE o en los casos en que la 
legislación de las CE permite una mayor especificida d en el plano de la legislación nacional.  No 
obstante, la aplicación uniforme por los Estados miem bros de las CE de procedimientos aduaneros 
comunes ha constituido un problema, al ser limitada  la interoperabilidad entre los sistemas.  La 
administración por parte de los Estados miembros de varias leyes y reglamentos aduaneros de las CE, WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 428  
 
 especialmente en la esfera de la valoración y la cl asificación, ha planteado preocupaciones, lo que ha 
sido objeto de una diferencia en la OMC.  La s CE están aplicando un mecanismo que fomenta la 
clasificación arancelaria uniforme de los productos que se importan a su territorio aduanero o se 
exportan desde él, el sistema de la Información ar ancelaria vinculante (IAV).  La IAV contiene 
información sobre la clasificación arancelaria del producto específico que se propone importar o 
exportar un operador económico.  La emiten, previa solicitud de  los operadores económicos, las 
autoridades aduaneras de los distintos Estados miembr os, y su validez se extiende a la totalidad de las 
CE, independientemente del Esta do miembro que la haya emitido.  Últimamente se vela por la 
aplicación uniforme de la legislaci ón aduanera de las CE. ¿Cómo surge la figura de la Información 
Arancelaria Vinculante (IAV)?  ¿Es un documento de uso interno (funciona rios aduaneros) ó es un 
requisito para el proceso de importación? 
 
Answer
 
The European Binding Tariff Information system (EBT I) is a trade facilitation mechanism that gives a 
trader the opportunity to request from customs a decision, binding on the customs as against that 
trader,  concerning the tariff classification of goods he either imports or expor ts.  That decision (BTI) 
gives the trader legal certainty for 6 years (with certai n statutory exceptions set out in Article 12 of 
the Customs Code) with regard to the customs trea tment accorded to his goods in all 27 member 
States.  A BTI is issued to a specific trader and onl y that trader can use that specific BTI.  A trader 
may only have one BTI or each type of goods he trades, however he may have as many BTI as he 
needs provided each one concerns a different type of goods.  Based on the tariff classification a trader 
can determine the amount of duties or any other customs charges he may have to pay, as well as 
determining if there are any other customs regim es applying to his goods (e.g. quotas, suspensions, 
anti-dumping duties, refunds, etc.).  Traders are not  obliged to request BTI but the advantages this 
mechanism gives traders with regard to legal certai nty has meant that between 40,000 and 50,000 
BTI are issued by the Member States each year. 
 
Further details regarding the EBTI system are ava ilable on the Europa website and in particular on 
the following web page:  http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_custo ms/common/databases/ebti/index_en.htm
 
 There are links on that page to the current legisla tion, the application form, general information on 
how to complete the application form and to the public database, all of which are available in any of 
the 22 working languages of the Community. 
 
POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS; Numeral 2) Medidas que afectan directamente a las importaciones; romanito ii) Aranceles; literal a) Arancel NMF 
común. 
 Question 7 
Los párrafos 14 y 15 señalan lo siguiente: Párraf o14: La nomenclatura arancelaria de 2008 de las  CE, 
denominada Nomenclatura Combinada, se basa en el sistema del SA 2007.  El arancel común de 2008 
de las CE consta de 9.699 líneas arancelarias a nivel de 8 dígitos.  Las CE continúan aplicando varias 
clases de aranceles;  los tipos que más se utilizan s on los ad valorem (89,9 por ciento), seguidos por 
los derechos específicos (6,5 por ci ento), compuestos (2,9 por ciento), mixtos con un mínimo y un 
máximo (0,8 por ciento);  y "aranceles por rango", que varían en función de  determinados rangos de 
"precios de entrada" c.i.f. (0,6  por ciento).  Además,  se aplican aranceles estacionales a determinados 
productos, principalmente agrícolas.  Algunos  productos agrícolas también están sujetos a 
contingentes arancelarios (capítulo IV ).  Se aplican tipos ad valorem sobre la base del valor c.i.f. en 
aduana.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 429 
 
 
 Párrafo 15: Los equivalentes ad valorem (EAV) de los aranceles no ad valorem se han calculado 
utilizando los precios unitarios medios o "precios de entrada" de las importaciones, cuando los hay.87  
Se aplican precios de entrada a algunos produc tos agrícolas (por ejemplo, tomates, pepinos, 
calabacines, cítricos, uvas, manzanas, peras, albari coques, melocotones, cerezas, ciruelas, zumos de 
frutas y determinados vinos), los cuales varían según la estación.88  En el análisis arancelario se 
utilizaron unas 9.557 líneas arancelarias, es decir, quedan excluidas 142 líneas sin precio de 
importación o entrada.  Las líneas arancelarias excluid as del análisis son de productos agrícolas.  Los 
resultados del análisis arancelario no pueden c onsiderarse más que una estimación por los motivos 
siguientes:  la exclusión de algunas líneas aran celarias (incluso variables) no ad valorem, 
principalmente en el caso de los productos agrí colas;  las demás deficiencias de los derechos 
específicos, incluidos los niveles dispares de protección que se otorgan a productos similares;  y la 
exclusión del arancel (por parte de las CE) del Acuerdo sobre Aeronaves Civiles del GATT.  En 
general, los tipos específicos de las CE se basan en  el peso de los productos importados, y repercuten 
más en productos relativamente pe sados y baratos que en productos car os de poco peso dentro de la 
misma línea arancelaria.89  Por consiguiente, la protección arancelaria nominal correspondiente a los 
productos (medida por los equivalentes ad valorem)  se mantiene inestable, esto es, varía con los 
precios de importación, incluidas las fluctuaciones de los tipos de cambio.  De conformidad con lo señalado en estos párrafos, las CE aplican aranceles mixtos con mínimos y máximos y aranceles por rangos que varían en f unción de determinados rangos de "precios de 
entrada", que resultan en aranceles equivalentes ad  valoren distintos según estos precios, aplicables 
principalmente a productos agrícolas. ¿No cons ideran las CE que estas formas de aplicación de 
aranceles afectan la necesaria previsibilidad que requieren los exportadores que destinen su 
producción hacia el mercado comunitario? 
 
En los casos en que no exista previamente precios  de entrada, ¿cómo pueden los exportadores estimar 
el arancel equivalente ad valoren aplicable a sus productos? 
 
Answer
 
(1) We would like to note that the EC is among th e top agricultural exporters in the world, it is 
also the world's biggest agricultural importer, remaining by far the largest market for developing 
countries. Any issues related to tariff simp lification are under discussion in the ongoing DDA 
negotiations. 
 (2) In the framework of the v erification process of Ad Valorem Equivalents (AVEs), Argentina 
and New Zealand asked whether for products with ent ry price, the EC has calculated the AVE based 
on the highest possible tariff being applied, ie the ad valorem rate plus th e highest possible specific 
rate. The EC confirmed that it was effectively the case.  
                                                     
 
87 Los EAV se calculan como la relación de los derechos específicos con respecto a los valores 
unitarios de las importaciones, estimados sobre la base de la relación de los valores de importación con respecto 
a las cantidades/volúmenes de importación.  Los datos de las importaciones proceden de EUROSTAT (UE-27), 
de fecha 15 de enero de 2009.  Cuando no hubo importaci ones de determinados productos en 2007, las líneas no 
se utilizaron en el análisis.  Además, en el caso de los tipos compuestos o mixtos, en el análisis únicamente se 
utilizan los componentes ad valorem . 
88 Anexo 2 del Reglamento (CE) Nº 1214/2007 de la Comisión, de 20 de septiembre de 2007, por el 
que se modifica el anexo I del Reglamento (CEE) Nº 26 58/87 del Consejo relativo a la nomenclatura arancelaria 
y estadística y al arancel aduanero común. 
89 Para más detalles de las deficiencias de los derech os específicos, véase OMC (2000), recuadro III.1. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 430  
 
 POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS; Numeral 2 ) Medidas que 
afectan directamente a las importaciones; ro manito vii) Medidas comerciales especiales. 
 Question 8 
El párrafo 48 establece que: Las medidas comercia les especiales de las CE son aplicables a todas las 
importaciones procedentes de terceros países, ex cepto los miembros del Espacio Económico Europeo 
(EEE).  Las CE aplican un sistema prospectivo. ¿Podrían las CE ampliar la definición de sistema prospectivo?  
Answer
 
A prospective system means that definitive measures when imposed apply to all future imports of the 
product concerned however in the European Commun ity importers can claim a refund of these duties 
and all parties can claim reviews should circumstances change. 
 
Question 9 
El párrafo 49 establece que: Entre las institucione s que intervienen en la aplicación de medidas 
comerciales especiales en las CE cabe citar las siguientes:  i) la Comisión Europea, que está encargada de iniciar y realizar las investigaciones, imponer medidas provisionales, proponer medidas para su 
adopción por el Consejo, aplicar medidas correctivas y velar por su observancia, y realizar exámenes;  
ii) el Consejo de Ministros, responsable de la adopción de las propuestas sobre medidas antidumping 
y compensatorias definitivas presenta das por la Comisión;  iii) el Tribunal de Primera Instancia, que 
tiene jurisdicción en los asuntos relativos a medid as antidumping y compensatorias;  y iv) el Tribunal 
de Justicia, que es el tribunal de apelación que entiende en asuntos bajo la jurisdicción del Tribunal de Primera Instancia y en asuntos relativos a medidas de salvaguardia en la medida en que puedan ser 
objeto de impugnación. Según se indica, las posibilid ades de impugnación de medidas de salvaguardia 
son limitadas; ¿podrían las CE explicar las limitantes antes mencionadas? 
 
Answer
 
It should be emphasised from the outset that the syst em of judicial protection in the European Union 
is a complete one. The last point of paragraph 49 was merely meant to explain that it is not always 
possible for economic operators to challenge  anti-dumping, counterva iling duty or safeguard 
measures by a direct action for annulment of those measures before the Court of First Instance of the 
European Communities. In certain cases, in partic ular if the operator concerned did not come 
forward at all during the investigation which led to  the adoption of the measure concerned, that may 
not be possible. Therefore, possible limitations re garding the possibility to directly challenge trade 
defence measures before the Court of First Inst ance relate to the admissibility of legal actions 
brought by economic operators before the above-men tioned Court. Indeed, such operators need to 
demonstrate that they are individually concerned by  the safeguard measures in question. Since e.g. 
safeguard proceedings normally con cern all imports of a given produc t from all exporting countries 
without regard to the identity or performance of specific exporters or impor ters, the latter might not 
be considered to be individually concerned. The sa me limitation applies to the domestic industry since 
it is not entitled to lodge a safeguard complaint.  
However, it should be emphasised that e.g. import ers that are not individually concerned by the trade 
defence measure, can contest the imposition of the dut y or measure before the courts of the Member 
State in which they have imported one or more sh ipments of the goods concerned. That court may 
then, if necessary, ask a question on the validity of the measure at issue to the Court of Justice of the 
European Communities. 
 
Question 10 
El párrafo 50 establece que: En diciembre de 200 6 la Comisión inició consultas públicas sobre los 
instrumentos de defensa comercial de las CE.  En ellas se identificaron varias esferas en las que podían reformarse las prácticas de defensa comercia l comunitarias, esferas que fueron después objeto  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 431 
 
 
 de debate entre los Estados mi embros, el Parlamento Europeo y las partes interesadas de la 
comunidad empresarial, sin que se llegara a un acuerdo. ¿Podrían las CE explicar las razones de por qué no se logró llegar a un acuerdo en ámbitos tan importantes como la transparencia, en qué consistían las mejoras y si se ha programa do retomar estas consultas en el futuro? 
 
Answer
 
The public consultation launched by the EC on its trade defence instruments received a large number 
of replies. The EC undertook a comprehensi ve analysis summarising the responses to the 
consultation. This evaluation report is published on the website of the Commission (http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/do cs/2007/november/tradoc_136846.pdf). 
 
The reflection process is still continuing and th ere is no specific timeline for concluding it. 
 Question 11 
El párrafo 60 establece que: En las CE sólo pue de iniciarse un procedimiento en materia de 
salvaguardias a petición de un Estado miembro o por  iniciativa de las CE. La representación de 
Panamá desea se aclare si la rama de Producción Naci onal tiene la posibilidad de solicitar el inicio de 
una investigación en materia de salvaguardias.  
Answer
 
Legally the domestic industry has indeed no right to request the initiation of a safeguard as the 
initiation of such investigation is only possible at the request of a Member State or on the EC's own 
intiative.   POLÍTICAS Y PRÁCTICAS COMERCIALES, POR MEDIDAS; Numeral 3) Medidas que afectan directamente a las exportaciones; romanito iv) Subvenciones a la exportación 
 
Question 12 
El párrafo 116 establece que: Las CE conceden s ubvenciones a la exportación a través de diversos 
programas: reintegro a la exportación, venta de re servas y financiación a los productores.  La Política 
Agrícola Común prevé la posibilidad de otorgar rein tegros a la exportación.  Los reintegros a la 
exportación están destinados a cubrir la diferencia  entre los precios vigentes en la Comunidad y los 
precios del comercio internacional, con el fin de permitir la exportación a los precios del comercio 
internacional. ¿Podrían las CE explicar si este rein tegro a la exportación tiene fecha de finalización y 
si el mismo es conforme al Acuerdo sobre Subve nciones y Medidas Compensatorias. (SCM) y al 
Acuerdo sobre la Agricultura? 
 
Answer
 
In using export subsidies we resp ect our scheduled commitments u nder the WTO and therefore, these 
measures are not WTO inconsistent measures. Th e EC has always and will continue to respect its 
international obligations.  POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES; Numeral 1) Introducción 
 
Question 13 
El párrafo 1 del Informe señala: El sector de los serv icios es el sector dominante en las CE debido a su 
contribución tanto al valor añadido bruto como al empleo.  Aunque sólo representa el 20 por ciento 
del comercio intracomunitario, este sector sigue sie ndo la prioridad en lo que respecta a la creación de 
un mercado interior genuino para finales de 2009 mediante la eliminación de los obstáculos 
normativos y administrativos subsistentes entre los Estados miembros.  Desde su último examen, las 
CE han adoptado el conjunto de medidas reguladoras de las telecomunicaciones de 2007 y la Directiva sobre los servicios postales, encaminada a conseguir la plena realización del mercado interior de servicios postales para 2010-2012.  Adem ás, las CE están aplicando la estrategia sobre los WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 432  
 
 servicios financieros para 2006-2010 y el Plan de acción para los transportes para el período 2002-
2010.  No obstante, otros muchos servicios no están sujetos a una política genera l de mercado interior;  
entre ellos figuran los de turismo, distribución, c onstrucción, ingeniería y consultoría, certificación y 
ensayos, así como los prestados por agencias de em pleo.  Determinados servicios, como el de las 
telecomunicaciones, están regulados a nivel de las CE, mientras que otros (como la educación y la 
sanidad) corresponden principalmente a la compet encia de los distintos Estados miembros.  
 
¿En qué consisten los obstáculos normativos y admini strativos para la creación del mercado interior 
genuino de las CE? 
 
¿Qué resultados ha producido hasta la fecha la  aplicación de la estrategia sobre los servicios 
financieros para 2006-2010 en el mercado interior de las CE?  ¿Cómo están regulados los servicios que no están  sujetos a la política de mercado interior? 
 
Answer
 
(1) Businesses wanting to set up in another Member  State face difficulties in finding out what the 
legal and administrative formalities in each of those Member States are. For example, an engineering 
company had to spend 3% of its annual turnover on  research into the differing legal requirements in 
just two other Member States where it wanted to  supply services. An electronic hardware and services 
company spent €100,000 on external legal advice to establish the rules in only five Member States.  
 
 In addition, complying with such requirements  can also entail additional costs for businesses 
who want to establish themselves in another Member  State or to provide cross-boder services there. 
For example businesses may have to go through burdens ome procedures in order to obtain 
authorizations to have access to a service acti vity in another Member State. Cross-boder service 
providers may also have to adapt their practices in order to comply with requirements  imposed by 
the Member State in which they provide services. There are also a number of requirements that may 
in practice discriminate businesses from other Memb er States or render the provision of services in 
other States much more difficult.   The Services Directive aims at facilitating the creation of a genuine internal market by 
removing obstacles to the establishment and to the cro ss-border provision of services. It obliges 
Member States to screen their authorisations schemes and to ensure that they are maintained only if 
non-discriminatory, justified by an overriding  reason relating to the public interest and 
proportionate. In addition, certain requirements im posed on service providers when they want to 
establish themselves in a Member State (e.g. set up a company, open a subsidiary), such as 
discriminatory requirements, prohibitions to have an establishment in more than one Member State, 
economic needs tests etc., have to be abolished. As regards cross-border service providers, under the 
Services Directive Member States w ill only be able to impose on th em those rules which are justified 
for four clearly identified reasons: public policy, pub lic security, public health and the protection of 
the environment.  
(2) The Financial  Services Policy 2005-2010 has produced important results and the measures 
included in the  White Paper of December 2005 have been  largely implemente d. While the financial 
integration process is very advan ced in the  EU  money and bond markets, particularly within the 
Euro area, retail services still remai n local, with important price differences and low levels of cross-
border transactions. Especially in the New Memb er States there seems to be room for consumers and 
businesses to benefit from further integration. Yet,  the financial integration process continued to 
advance in 2008 and further impetus is likely to come from the implementation of the Markets in 
Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID), the Singl e Euro Payments Area (SEPA) and the adoption of 
the single currency in an increasing number of EU-12 Member States   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 433 
 
 
 (3) All services that constitute economic activities are subject to the EC Treaty rules. However, 
non-economic activities (such as certain education syst ems or the management of the social security 
systems) are not subject to the internal market rules. 
 
POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES; Num eral 4) Sector manufacturero; romanito 
i) Visión general 
 Question 14 
En el párrafo 82 se establece que: Debido a las preo cupaciones con respecto a la desindustrialización, 
en octubre de 2005 la Comisión estableció la actual política industrial de las CE, de conformidad con 
los objetivos fijados por el Consejo Europeo de Li sboa de los días 23 y 24 de marzo de 2000.  La 
política complementa la labor a nivel de los Esta dos miembros e incluye 7 grandes iniciativas de 
política horizontal y 7 iniciativas relativas a sect ores específicos, así como el análisis de 
oportunidades y retos para 27 industrias diferentes ag rupadas en 4 amplias categorías (ciencias de la 
alimentación y de la vida, máquinas y sistemas, moda  y diseño, e industrias básicas e intermedias).  
En el sector siguen predominando las pequeñas y medianas empresas (PYME).  En noviembre de 
2005 la Comisión presentó una nueva política genera l para las PYME con el fin de contribuir a 
hacerlas más competitivas. 
 
¿Podrían las CE explicar en qué consisten las 7 grandes iniciativas de política horizontal y las 7 
iniciativas relativas a sectores específicos? 
 
¿Podrían explicar en qué consiste esta nueva política general para las PYMES? 
 
Answer
 
(1) The seven major horizontal policy initiatives  were announced to address challenges common across 
groupings of different industries in the light of competitiven ess considerations. 
 1. An intellectual property rights (IPR) and counterfeiting initiative 
Given the importance of IPR in for the compe titiveness of many industrial sectors, the 
Commission launched a dialogue with industry and other intere sted parties to determine 
what more might usefully be done to pr ovide European industry with a sound IPR 
framework.  
Taking account existing and planned anti-count erfeiting and anti-piracy instruments and 
measures, including those in the enforcement
90 and customs fields, the Commission 
reviewed the state of progress in the whole area of IPR with a focus on competitiveness 
issues. 
 
2. A high level group on  competitiveness, energy, and the environment 
Competitiveness, energy and en vironmental policies are clos ely interrelated in their 
objectives and impacts, in par ticular on many basic and inte rmediate product industries. 
Given the need for consistency of policy and le gislative initiatives in  these areas and, in 
order to exploit fully the synergies between them, closer coordination and the development 
of an integrated approach was essentia l. For this purpose a High Level Group on 
Competitiveness, Energy and the Environment was set up. It functioned as an advisory 
platform bringing together the Members of the Commission for Enterprise and Industry, 
Competition, Energy and the Environment as  well as all relevant stakeholders. 
 
3. External aspects of competitiveness and market access  
                                                      
90 Including the Commission proposals for a directiv e on "EU criminal law provisions to combat 
infringements of intellectual property rights", July 2005.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 434  
 
 Access to international markets is a priority issue for most of the sectors. Market access 
objectives are regularly prioritised in combinat ion with a more effective use of the Trade 
Barriers Regulation.  4. New legislative  simplification programme  
Better regulation at various levels has been  identified as a key challenge for several 
sectors, including construction, motor veh icles, ICT industries, and the food and life 
sciences industries. The Comm ission re-launched its work on th e simplification of existing 
legislation.   
5. Improving sectoral skills  
Skill shortages were identified as a key challe nge in a wide range of  different industries, 
including the ICT and engineering industries , the textile  and leather industries , and a 
number of basic and intermediate goods industries . Moreover there is some evidence that 
relocation  of industrial activity is in some cases motivated more by skill shortages than by 
cost factors. The Commission has already be gun to address skill shortage issues through a 
number of policies, such as the Educatio n and Training 2010 work programme, including 
the European Qualification Framework (EQF).   6. Managing structural change in manufacturing 
The following industries need to manage structural adjustment: the textiles, leather, 
furniture, footwear, and ceramics industries, printing, motor vehicles, shipbuilding, 
steel, and parts of the food industries.  The Commission intends to ensure that better 
anticipation of economic restructuring are included in the new Structural Funds programmes.  
7. An integrated European approach to  industrial research and innovation  
A new integrated approach on Research and I nnovation was set up with support policies 
and actions, including a number of initiatives highl y relevant for industrial sectors. As part 
of the follow up a European Industrial Research and Innovation Monitoring System  was 
established to provide a cons olidated analysis of developm ents relevant to industrial 
research and innovation, and a conduit for stakeholder views. 
 
In addition, seven new sector-specific initiatives
 were implemented:  
 
1. Setting up of a new pharmaceuticals forum : a new forum with government ministers, 
senior industry representatives and other stakeholders concentrating on R&D, 
national regulations and the development of a single market. 
 2. Mid-term review of life sciences and biotechnology strategy : it involved closer 
cooperation with industry through the Co mpetitiveness in Biotechnology Advisory 
Group and a regular annual triangular dialog ue with industry and Member states in 
order to help identify problems, propo se priorities, and make recommendations for 
actions. 
 3. New High-Level Groups on the chemicals  and the defense  industry: new high level 
groups were established to focus on the impact of the REACH directive on the competitiveness of the chemical se ctor and to consider procurement and 
standardization in the defense area. 
 4. European Space  Programme: common, inclusive and flexible programmatic basis for 
the activities of European Space Agency,  EU and their respective Member states. 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 435 
 
 
 5. Taskforce on information and communication technologies  (ICT) competitiveness : a 
taskforce with stakeholder’ s representatives was set up to  focus on identifying and 
removing the obstacles that inhibit ICT take-up. It also drew attention of Member states to the barriers to the competitiveness of  ICT manufacturing in Europe and the 
obstacles to wide and effective take-up. 
6. Mechanical engineering policy dialogue : separate forums examined the sectors’ 
strengths and weaknesses and proposed remedies. 
 7. A series of competitiveness studies , including for the ICT, food, and fashion and 
design industries analyzing the trends affecting the competitiveness of industrial 
sectors with a view to deriving further proposals for concrete policies and actions 
where necessary. 
 
(2) The European Union has limited competences in many policy areas which directly affect 
SMEs. However the Commission plays a key role by influencing MS action, monitoring progress in 
EU policy at EU level, in particular through the Gr owth and Jobs strategy, and contributing to the 
exchange of good practices (through conferences, datab ases or initiatives such as the European 
Enterprise Awards that promotes entrepreneurial initiatives).  The "Small Business Act" for Europe 
(SBA) is the most recent and major European Commi ssion initiative in favour of SMEs. It includes a 
set of 10 politically binding principles and a packa ge of concrete measures aimed at improving the 
overall policy approach towards ent repreneurship, anchoring the "Think Small First" principle in all 
policy-making from regulation to public service and promoting SMEs growth (see more details on: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ entrepreneurship/sba_en.htm
). The proposed measures include both 
legislative and not legislative initiatives. The legislative proposals included the General Block Exemption Regulation on state aids, the proposal fo r the Statute for a European Private Company, the 
proposal on reduced VAT rates for locally supplied services, including labour intensive services, the 
proposal for simplifying rules on VAT invoicing and the proposal for the amendment to the late 
payment directive.   On its side the not legislative initiatives focus among others on:   
• Making legislation more SME friendly thanks to the "SME test" and specific 
measures for them (exemptions, longer transition period, simplified 
requirements, dedicated help desks) 
• Boosting SME chances of winning public  procurements (code of best 
practices) 
• Encouraging exchanges among young entrepreneurs and apprentices 
(Erasmus for young entrepreneurs) 
• Improving the access to mezzanine finance and micro-credits 
• Improving the access to skills and especially to e-skills tools. 
• Promoting the access to national research programmes and transnational 
research. 
•  
 The complete list of the pr oposed measures and the updated follow up of the actions to be 
taken at EU level are available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/entrep reneurship/sba_implementation.htm 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 436  
 
 POLÍTICAS COMERCIALES POR SECTORES; Numera l 5) Servicios; romanito i) Panorama 
general 
 
Question 15 
El párrafo 108 del informe señala: Los servicios  son el principal sector económico de las CE:  
representan el 69,5 por ciento del valor añadido bruto,  el 68,9 por ciento del empleo y el 96 por ciento 
de los nuevos puestos de trabajo creados en 2007.  El tamaño del sector varía considerablemente entre 
los distintos Estados miembros y hay en las CE una considerable dispersión de niveles de precios de 
los servicios.  Además, el sector constituye la cuesti ón prioritaria en lo que se refiere a la ultimación 
del mercado único, ya que sólo representa el 20 por ciento del comercio intracomunitario, más de la 
mitad del cual corresponde al turismo y los transpor tes. El bajo nivel del comercio intracomunitario 
de servicios se debe en parte a los obstáculos s ubsistentes, como los monopolios, que impiden el 
establecimiento de proveedores de servicios de ot ros Estados miembros (por ejemplo, servicios 
postales o servicios públicos relacionados con la en ergía), y las diferencias de reglamentación entre 
los Estados miembros.¿Qué acciones están tomando las CE frente a los monopolios y la diferencia de 
reglamentación entre sus estados Miembros, que obstaculizan el comercio intracomunitario de 
servicios?  
Answer
 
As stated in the Report, the Directive on Services in the Internal Market (the "Services Directive" 
No. 2006/123/EC), adopted in December 2006, aims to set out a framework for the creation of a 
genuine internal market for services through the rem oval of many of the remaining regulatory and 
administrative hurdles between Member States by 2010, on the basis of two key elements: freedom to 
establish a business in another Member State, and free-trade between Member States. It builds on the "fundamental freedoms" of the EC Treaty, including the freedom of establishment and the free-movement of services.  
 
The Services Directive does not harmonize national  legislation applicable to the services sector. 
However, the Services Directive obliges Member States to screen th eir authorisations schemes and to 
ensure that they are maintained only if non-discrimi natory, justified by an overriding reason relating 
to the public interest and proportionate. In addition, certain requirements imposed on service 
providers when they want to establish themselves in a Member State (e.g. set up a company, open a 
subsidiary), such as discriminatory requirements, prohibitions to have an establishment in more than 
one Member State, economic needs tests etc., ha ve to be abolished. As regards cross-border service 
providers, under the Services Dire ctive Member States will only be able to impose on them those rules 
which are justified for four clearly identified reasons : public policy, public security, public health and 
the protection of the environment.  
 
The Services Directive should therefore facilitate services trade between EU Member States. The 
Services Directive covers around 50%  of all economic activity in the EC, but does not include some 
subsectors (some of them subject to other EC initiatives) (i.e. non-economic services of general 
interest; financial services; telecommunications; transport, including port services; services of 
temporary work agencies; healthcare; audiovisual; gambling; activities connected with the exercise 
of official authority; certain social services rel ating to social housing, childcare and support of 
families and persons in need; private security s ervices; and services provided by notaries and bailiffs 
appointed by an official act of government).   The Services Directive applies to service providers that a re nationals of an EU State or legal persons 
established in a EU State. Companies from third co untries not established in the EU or branches of 
companies from third countries in an EU State cannot  benefit directly from the Services Directive. If 
these companies establish themselves in  the EU, however, they will be able to fully benefit from the 
Services Directive.    WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 437 
 
 
 SERVICIOS 
 
Question 16: 
Párrafo 118. La integración, en particular en el  mercado de valores, se ve obstaculizada por la 
fragmentación de los sistemas nacionales de compen sación y liquidación de valores.  En respuesta a 
esta situación, en 2006 se estableció un Código de Conducta en materia de compensación y 
liquidación con el fin de mejorar su se guridad y eficiencia y reducir su costo.91  Contiene 
compromisos en tres esferas: tr ansparencia de los precios;  acceso e interoperabilidad;  y 
desvinculación de los servicios y contabilidad separada.  La Comisión ha adoptado también una 
directiva encaminada a aumentar la transparencia y la  seguridad jurídica de la aprobación, de previa 
supervisión, de las adquisiciones en la banca, los seguros y los valores.92  Otras iniciativas adoptadas 
en el marco de la nueva estrategia sobre los servici os financieros son:  la introducción de la Zona 
Única de Pagos para el Euro (SEPA) en 2008, para que los pagos en euros no realizados en efectivo 
sean tan sencillos y seguros como si se realizaran dentro de un mismo país y la mejora de la 
competencia en los mercados de pagos de las CE93;  la publicación de un Libro Blanco sobre el 
crédito hipotecario en diciembre de 2007;  y las modificaciones de las Decisiones por las que se 
establecieron el Comité de Supervisores Bancar ios Europeos (CSBE), el Comité Europeo de 
Supervisores de Seguros y Pensiones de Jubilación (CESPJ) y el Comité de responsables europeos de 
reglamentación de valores, que se adoptarán en 2009. ¿En qué consiste la directiva para la previa 
supervisión en las adquisiciones en los sectores de banca, seguros y valores? 
 
Answer  
The Directive 2007/44 improves the procedural ru les and evaluation criteria for the prudential 
assessment of acquisitions and increase of holdings in  the financial sector. It requires to provide the 
necessary legal certainty, clarity and predictability w ith regard to the assessment process, as well as 
to the result thereof.  
 
Question 17 
Párrafo 133. Las normas de las Di rectivas sobre seguros de las CE  relativas a las compañías de 
seguros de terceros países sólo se refieren al estab lecimiento de sucursales y agencias en las CE.  La 
libertad para suministrar servicios en terceros pa íses no está reglamentada a nivel comunitario.  Las 
cuestiones no abarcadas por la legislación com unitaria siguen siendo competencia de los Estados 
miembros, con sujeción a las disposiciones generales de l Tratado de las CE.  Las Directivas de las CE 
prohíben expresamente a los Estados miembros introduc ir controles de precios;  es decir, los Estados 
miembros no pueden exigir en sus disposiciones na cionales la autorización previa ni la notificación 
sistemática de las condiciones de las pólizas. ¿L a UE establece limitaciones al establecimiento de 
instituciones de seguros extranjeras en su territorio? 
 
Answer  
The Directives does not lay down any limitation to th e establishment of subsidiaries in a Member 
State.   
                                                     
 
91 El elevado costo de las transacci ones transfronterizas se debe a obstáculos técnicos, jurídicos y 
fiscales, como la doble imposición de las corrientes de  ingresos de las empresas asociadas establecidas en 
distintos Estados miembros. 
92 Directiva 2007/44/CE de 5 de septiembre de 2007 por la que se modifica la Directiva 92/49/CEE del 
Consejo y las Directivas 2002/83/CE, 2004/39/CE, 2005/68/CE y 2006/48/CE en lo que atañe a las normas 
procedimentales y los criterios de evaluación aplicable s en relación con la evaluación cautelar de las 
adquisiciones y de los incrementos de participaciones en el sector financiero. 
93 El objetivo último de la SEPA es crear una zona de pagos armonizados y eficientes sin que haya 
diferencias entre pagos transfronterizos y nacionales. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 438  
 
 To operate in a Member State, agencies and branches belonging to insurance undertakings whose 
head office are outside the community, should receive an authorisation to operate by this Member 
State. For this, Member States should verify that th e agency or branch meet some minimum conditions 
specified in the Life and Non Life Directives. With respect to the branches of reinsurance companies 
no specific requirements are laid down at EU level . The treatment of branches of foreign reinsurance 
companies remains a matter for Member States. 
 Question 18 
Párrafo 143. El marco de las CE en materia de ser vicios postales, establecido en la Directiva Postal
94, 
tenía por objeto mejorar la calidad del servicio,  mantener el servicio postal universal para los 
ciudadanos de las CE y lograr la plena realización del mercado interior de servicios postales.  El 
marco preveía la apertura progresiva del mercado mediante la reducción gradual del área reservada 
(inicialmente, el correo por debajo de los 350 g, um bral que se redujo en 2002 a 100 g y que el 1º de 
enero de 2006 pasó a ser de 50 g).  Un elemento clave de la Directiva es la creación de un marco 
normativo sólido, con reguladores nacionales independi entes. ¿La reserva para servicios postales está 
dirigida a que la prestación del servicio debe ser prestado por empresas estatales? 
 
Answer  
The EU postal directive does not adress the question of  ownership of the universal service provider. 
In the previous directive, the reser ved area (abolished by the 3d postal directive which foresees full 
market opening) may be granted by a governement to  the universal service provider, only to the extent 
necessary to ensure univer sal service maintenance. 
 The EU decided in 1994 to a gradual and controlled liberalisation of the EU postal markets. The postal monopoly, or 'reserved area' has th erefore been gradually reduced in the EU 
(Directive 97/67/EC; Directive 2002/39/ EC) and the final step has been taken with Directive 
2008/6/EC to fully open postal markets (no more res erved area). This has been accompanied by the 
creation of a strong and robust regulatroy framewo rk, with notably the creation of independent 
national regulatory authorities. Th e objective to fully accomplish th e internal market postal services 
is to grant EU citizens and businesses a dy namic and efficient postal services. 
 Question 19 
Párrafo 148. El comercio en todos los modos de servicios de transpor te entre los Estados miembros de 
las CE se ha liberalizado sustancialmente desde 1993,  si bien sigue habiendo algunas restricciones (no 
existe aún cabotaje en el transporte de carga por ferr ocarril, ni apertura del mercado de transporte de 
pasajeros por ferrocarril).  La liberalización del ca botaje en los demás modos de transporte se produjo 
por etapas.
95 ¿El mercado de transporte de pasajeros por ferrocarril está limitado a empresas estatales 
o a inversionistas nacionales? 
 
Answer  
The market opening of the rail transport was put into  practice in three stages called "packages". The 
second railway package was adopted by the Parliame nt and the Council in 2004. Some of the main 
elements were:  
 
- The Directive 2004/51 which modifies the directive 91/440 opens the market for    international freight transport to the entire European rail network by the  
  1 January 2006,  - Furthermore, she opens the market for natio nal freight transport ('cabotage') by the 
  1 January 2007.  
                                                     
 
94 Directiva 97/67/CE, modificada por la Directiva 2002/39/CE. 
95 Véase OMC (2004) y (2007).  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 439 
 
 
 Besides, the European Parliament and the Council of Transport Ministers adopted the legislative 
proposals making up the third railway  package in 2007. In that framework, the Directive 2007/58/EC 
introduces open access rights for international ra il passenger services including cabotage by 2010. 
 Question 20 
Párrafo 156. En 2006, las CE contaban con 9.900 embarcaciones, esto es, un 35,5 por ciento de la 
flota total mundial controlada, c on una capacidad de 332,1 millones de toneladas de peso muerto 
(TPM).  Grecia y Alemania reunían el 69,2 por ci ento del total de TPM de las CE.  La flota con 
pabellón comunitario ha aumentado de manera significativa desde 1997 gracias a la adopción de 
directrices sobre la ayuda estatal, que permiten que el personal que trabaja en buques matriculados en 
las CE se beneficie de una reducción de los impuestos  y las contribuciones a la seguridad social.  Sin 
embargo, en 2006 las embarcaciones con pabellón extr anjero eran el 67,7 por ciento.  En 2004, la 
Comisión adoptó directrices mejoradas para acelerar el proceso de reabanderamiento, animando a los 
armadores a mantener el tonelaje que registran c on pabellón comunitario, so  pena de perder las 
ayudas estatales que puedan recibir por embarcacion es adicionales que naveguen bajo pabellón de 
países terceros.
96 ¿Qué sanciones sufren los armadores europe os que utilicen banderas de terceros 
países?  
Answer
 
There is no "sanction" at all in the technical me aning for ships flying the flag of a third country 
despite the fact of being owned and/ or operated by a European entitity.  
 
Paragraph 156 already contains th e elements regarding State aid.  
 TELECOMUNICACIONES 
 
Question 21 
Párrafo 141. El 13 de noviembre de 2007, la Comisión presentó el paquete de reformas de las 
telecomunicaciones, reconociendo, entre ot ras cosas, que el marco normativo de las 
telecomunicaciones no ha logrado hacer realidad  todo su potencial y que es posible que quede 
rezagado;  sigue habiendo estrangulamientos, en partic ular en el segmento de la banda ancha;  y el 
espectro radioeléctrico est á infrautilizado.  El paquete está sie ndo debatido por el Parlamento Europeo 
y por los Estados miembros en el Consejo
97;  se espera que se convierta en ley a finales de 2009 y que 
entre en vigor a partir de 2010.98 ¿En qué consiste el paquete de reformas de las telecomunicaciones 
que presentó la Comisión el 13 de noviembre de 2007 y que está siendo discutido en el Parlamento 
Europeo? 
 
Answer  
The proposals tabled by the Commission to revi ew the existing EU Regulatory Framework for 
electronic communications networks are now und er scrutiny (Second Reading) of the European 
Parliament and the Council, th e so-called co-legislators.  
 The new framework is designed to update and stre ngthen the existing regulatory framework in three 
main areas: 
                                                     
 
96 En particular, las directrices af ectan a los armadores que tengan menos de un 60 por ciento de su 
tonelaje bajo pabellón comunitario, en Estados miembros  en los que la matrícula comunitaria de embarcaciones 
haya descendido durante los tres años  precedentes (Comisión Europea, 2006c). 
97 Para la información sobre las pr opuestas del paquete de reforma de las comunicaciones, véase la 
información en línea de la Comisión Europea.  Consultado en:  http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/ newsroom/cf/itemlongdetail.cfm?item_id=3723.  Para los avances en su adopción, vé ase:  http://ec.europa.eu/ 
information_society/policy/eco mm/tomorrow/next/index_en.htm. 
98 Comunicado de prensa Europa IP/07/1677, de 13 de noviembre de 2007. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 440  
 
 1. Providing for better regulation of th e EU electronic communications sector, by 
simplifying and streamlining the regulatory environment
. This is achieved inter alia by 
strengthening the independence and enforcemen t powers of national regulatory authorities 
and clarifying the principles applying to appeal s against their decisions, as well as by 
updating the regulatory principles which guide them (for example to take fuller account of 
market developments such as investment in N ext Generation Access networks). With regard to 
radio spectrum, the proposals establish a st rategic policy regarding spectrum use in 
electronic communications. They also aim to reduce the barriers to th e single market by 
establishing service and technology neutrality as th e basic principles for spectrum regulation, 
thus enabling better services through a more flexible use. In addition the coordinated 
introduction of tradability in specific spectru m bands can be adopted on an EU-wide basis. 
 2. Facilitating the completion of the single market for electronic communications by 
strengthening the tools available to ensure consistency
 in the application of the rules across  
the EU. This is done in particular through th e establishment of an independent body of 
regulators in electronic communications, whic h will combine the knowledge and experience 
of the national regulators and provide expert advice to the Commission and individual national regulatory authorities where need ed. The co-ordination and consultation 
mechanisms applicable to the imposition of ex ante regulatory obligations are also strengthened, for example by conferring addi tional powers on the Commission to address 
cases where national measures would crea te a barrier to the single market.  
 
3. Enhancing consumer protecti on and strengthening user rights
, by improving the 
security of electronic communications and u sers' privacy, by making number portability 
speedier and more efficient, and by promoti ng a high quality of service and unobstructed 
access to digital and online content. The refor m proposals are also designed to ensure that 
users with disabilities, elderly users and peopl e with special needs have better access to 
electronic communications services. 
 
PROPIEDAD  INTELECTUAL 
 Question 22  
Párrafo 167. Las marcas comunitarias son efectivas en toda la Comunidad;  son registradas y 
administradas de modo centralizado por la Oficina de la Armonizaci ón del Mercado Interior (OAMI).  
Los solicitantes pueden presentar la solicitud directamen te a la OAMI, o bien a una oficina nacional, 
la cual la remite seguidamente a la OAMI.  Los sistemas nacionales de marcas de fábrica o de comercio existen junto con el sistema de marcas comunitarias y en paralelo a éste.  El derecho 
comunitario en materia de marcas no sustituye a la legislación de los Estados miembros;  la 
reglamentación de la marca comunitaria no regula todas las cuestiones y en ocasiones se remite expresamente a las legislaciones nacionales.  Po r ejemplo, la competencia sobre las acciones por 
infracción se confiere a los tribunales nacionales que  deben ser designados po r los Estados miembros. 
 Párrafo 172. La protección de los dibujos y modelos se  rige en las CE por la Directiva 98/71/CE y el 
Reglamento (CE) Nº 6/2002 del Consejo.
99  Los dibujos y modelos comun itarios confieren un derecho 
unitario que se aplica en toda la Comunidad.  Lo s dibujos y modelos pueden protegerse mediante el 
registro (disponible desde abril de 2003) o sin él (con  efecto a partir de marz o de 2002).  La Directiva 
sobre los dibujos y modelos sólo se refiere a los dibujos y modelos registrados y se aplica en paralelo a los sistemas nacionales de dibujos y modelos re gistrados que rigen en cada Estado miembro.  Las 
legislaciones nacionales en materia de dibujos y modelos se han armonizado en gran medida con 
dicha Directiva;  los criterios para optar a la protección, y la duración de ésta, son los mismos que 
                                                     
 
99 DO L 3, de 5 de enero de 2002, y sus modificaciones.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 441 
 
 
 para los dibujos y modelos comunitarios registrados.100  Muchos Estados miembros protegen también 
en su legislación nacional los dibujos y modelo s no registrados, incluso cuando no están amparados 
por la Directiva.  Dada la variedad de las práctic as imperantes en los distintos Estados miembros, en 
la Directiva se deja a la discreción de los Esta dos miembros la protección de "los componentes de 
productos complejos", en particular los repuestos para automóviles. 
¿Sólo se pueden registrar marcas o dibujos comun itarios aquellos que sean originarias de las 
Comunidades Europeas? ¿Es decir, puede una marc a procedente de otra región, por ejemplo una 
marca o un dibujo panameño, registrarse ante la OA MI y ser reconocida y protegida en la Comunidad 
Europea?   Answer
 
Any natural or legal person may be the proprie tor of a Community trade mark or a Community 
design. As to the entitlement to apply there is t hus no restriction whatsoever concerning nationality or 
domicile. Moreover, persons who have duly filed an application for a trade mark or a design in or for any State party to the Paris Convention or to the Agreement establishing the WTO, shall enjoy, for the 
purpose of filing a Community trade mark applicati on or a Community design application for the 
same trade mark or design a right of priority duri ng a period of six months from the date of filing of 
the first application.  Question 23: 
Párrafo 195.  En 2006 se introdujeron modificaciones en  el sistema comunitario para la protección de 
los nombres de los productos agrícolas (denom inación de origen protegida (DOP), indicación 
geográfica protegida (IGP) y especialidad tradicional garantizada (ETG))
101, entre otros motivos para 
explicitar que pueden protegerse nombres originarios de terceros países.  El sistema también se 
declaró accesible a las solicitudes u oposiciones pr esentadas directamente a la Comisión Europea por 
grupos de productores de terceros países (es decir,  ya no se exige que los productores actúen por 
medio de sus autoridades nacionales).102  La Comisión actúa como árbitro, sin posibilidad de 
apelación, en caso de que la conciliación entre las pa rtes resulte infructuosa.  El  registro de las DOP y 
las IGP confiere derechos de comercialización excl usivos, por cuya observa ncia han de velar los 
Estados miembros.  Los productos infract ores han de ser retirados del mercado.103  E l  r e g i s t r o  
comunitario de productos agrícolas y alimenticios contiene más de 818 DOP e IGP, entre las que 
figuran denominaciones originarias de terceros países (por ejemplo, "Café de Colombia").104  E l  
registro de vinos y bebidas espirituosas con tiene 2.127 denominaciones (1.800 de vinos y 327 de 
bebidas espirituosas).  En él hay dos denominaciones originarias de terceros países, a saber, "Vale dos 
Vinhedos" (Brasil) y "Napa Valley" (Estados Unidos).  ¿Pudiera ampliarnos más el concepto sobre la 
especialidad tradicional garantizad a en el caso de las indicaciones ge ográficas y si este concepto es 
aplicable a terceros países no miembro de las Comunidad Europeas? 
 
                                                      
100 Directiva 98/71/CE, de 13 de octubre de 1998, so bre la protección jurídica de los dibujos y modelos, 
DO L 289, de 28 de octubre de 1998.  El propósito de la Directiva es aproximar las disposiciones legales 
(nacionales) que incidan más directamente en el func ionamiento del mercado interior, mientras que las 
disposiciones sobre sanciones, recursos y control del cumplimiento se dejan a las legislaciones nacionales. 
101 Empleada para productos vinculados a un determinado método de producción;  por ejemplo, el 
queso mozzarella  (tradición italiana). 
102 Las oposiciones a las solicitudes pueden ser pr esentadas a la Comisión Europea por los Estados 
miembros, por terceros países o por personas físicas o jurídicas que tengan un interés legítimo.  Reglamento 
(CE) Nº 510/2006 del Consejo, de 20 de marzo de 2006 , y Reglamento (CE) Nº 509/2006 del Consejo, de la 
misma fecha. 
103 Comisión Europea (2007e). 
104 Información en línea de la Comisión Europea.  Consultada en:  http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/ 
quality [24 de noviembre de 2008]. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 442  
 
 Answer
 
Any producer group, from an EU Member State or th ird country can apply for a traditional speciality 
guaranteed (TSG) for the products it produces or obt ains. The Council Regulation (EC) No 509/2006 
on agricultural products and foodstu ffs as traditional specialities guaranteed shall apply without 
prejudice to Community rules or those from Memb er States governing intellectual property rights and 
in particular those concerning geogr aphical indications and trademarks. 
 
Question 24 
Párrafo 201. Las CE están resueltas a continuar lucha ndo contra la falsificaci ón y la piratería, tanto 
unilateralmente como en el marco de acuerdos bila terales, regionales y multilaterales que incluyan el 
establecimiento de sistemas eficientes para la solución de diferencias.105  Las CE son uno de los 
principales participantes en las negociaciones de  un Acuerdo comercial pl urilateral contra la 
falsificación, que consta de tres componentes fundamentales:  i) c ooperación internacional, 
principalmente entre las aduanas y los organism os encargados de velar por la observancia;  
ii) prácticas para lograr la observancia;  y iii) marco jurídico.106 ¿Quisiéramos conocer en qué consiste 
el Acuerdo comercial plurilateral contra la fals ificación que está promoviendo la Comisión y en qué 
etapa se encuentra el mismo?  
Answer
 
Negotiations on a new Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Ag reement (ACTA) were launched in 2007.  The 
goal of the ACTA negotiations is to provide an international framework that improves the 
enforcement of intellectual property right (IPR) laws . It does not purport to create new intellectual 
property rights, but to create improved internatio nal standards as to how to act against large-scale 
infringements of IPR.  This goal is pursued through three primary components of ACTA: 
(i) international co-operation; 
(ii) enforcement practices; and (iii  legal framework for enforcement of IPRs.  
The negotiations are still ongoing. There is, at this stage, no agreed text. Mere detailed information 
about ACTA can be found at:  http://ec.europa.eu /trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property/acta_en.htm.  
 
INDIA II
 
 
Question 1 
Indian generic pharmaceutical products are being expo rted globally fully compliant with patent laws 
in India as well as the destination countries. These exports are being shipped by using transport 
services provided by European carriers.  The transportation at times involves transhipment at ports/airports in the European Union.   In the r ecent past customs authorities in EU Member States (in 
Netherlands) have seized such consig nments on grounds of patent viola tions in the European Union.  
Such action violates the principle of territoriality  of intellectual property right and has serious 
implications to global public health.  
 
1. Will the EC clarify the regulations unde r which such action has been taken? 
                                                     
 
105 Parlamento Europeo (2008). 
106 Puede consultarse más información al respecto en el comunicado de  prensa de la Unión Europea 
IP/07/1573, 23 de octubre de 2007.  Consultado en:  http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference= 
IP/07/1573&format=HTML&aged=0&lan guage=en&guiLanguage=en);  información en línea de la Comisión 
Europea, "Fact Sheet:  Anti-Co unterfeiting Trade Agreement", Bruselas, 23 de octubre de 2007.  Consultada en:  
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property /fs23007_en.htm) y http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/ 
sectoral/intell_property/acta_en.en.htm.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 443 
 
 
 2. Will the EC explain the compatibility of su ch regulations with TRIPS agreement? 
3. Will the EC clarify whether such action can be  taken on consignments which are on transport 
carriers which halt at EU ports? 
4. Will the EC clarify whether such action can be  taken on consignments which are not required 
to be cleared by EU Customs author ities in the process of transhipment? 
5. Will the EC clarify whether such action is c ontrary to the WTO rule based system which 
under the GATT Agreement provides for freedom of transit by the most economical and 
convenient routes and without unn ecessary delays and restrictions? 
6. Will the EC explain the action proposed to be taken on such consignments of Indian 
pharmaceutical products seized in an EU Member State (the Netherlands) 
 
Answer  
1. The main legal basis for such actions is EU  Council Regulation 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003 
(Official Journal L 196 of 2.8.2003).   
2. Section 4 of the TRIPS Agreement on Special Requirements Related to border Measures sets 
out minimum standards on customs enforcement. This is  clearly reflected in Article 51 which states 
that "Members may, but shall not be obliged to, implement in their law more extensive protection than 
is required by this Agreement." More explicitl y on customs enforcement, footnote 13 allows WTO 
Members to apply customs procedures to imports of goods put on the market in another country by or 
with the consent of the right holder, or to goods in transit. Regulation 1383/2003 is based on the these 
rules and is therefore fully compatible with EC's  and its Member States' commitments under the 
TRIPS Agreement.  
3. Council Regulation 1383/2003 provides for custom s to detain goods suspected of infringing 
certain intellectual property rights, including patents, even when goods are in transit. Under the customs legislation, customs do not decide wheth er goods are infringing IPR. The general procedure 
is to detain goods, where there is a suspicious th at there is an infrigement and contact the right 
holder. It is then up to the right holder to pursue the matter through a court, under national 
provisions. 
 
4. See reply to question 3  
5. GATT rules recognize the rights of WTO Members to adopt measures of customs 
enforcement, notably, to secure protection of IP rights. Regulation 1383/2003 is based on these rules 
and is therefore fully compatible with EC's an d its Member States' commitments under the GATT 
1994.  
6. The EC is fully committed to ensuring the flu idity of legitimate trade in generic medicines 
and will monitor the situation and remain attentive to  any possible application of EC legislation that 
may lead to undue hampering of legitimate trade in  generic medicines or to the creation of legal 
barriers preventing the movement of drugs to developing countries.  
The Indian pharmaceutical consignments were te mporarily detained and the right holder and the 
owner of the goods were informed. Provision fo reseen in the EU and national legislation were 
applied.  
 Question 2 
1. Will the EC explain the scientific basis for chec king of 50% of flower consignments imported 
into the EU from India?  
2. Is this threshold requirement for checking of flower consignment reviewed on the basis of 
rejections?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 444  
 
 3. While higher rejections in other products  have resulted in EC requiring increased 
testing/mandatory testing, why is the fact of lower rejections not considered to reduce the 
frequency of checking/testing as this would be  an important trade facilitation measure?   
 
Answer
 
1 Cut flowers of Rosa sp. plants (cut roses) from  India are eligible for a reduced 50% frequency 
of the physical plant health checks at import into the EU in 2009. This minimum percentage is a result 
of applying a simple generic statistical model in accordance with ISPM 20 "Guidelines for a Phytosanitary Import Regulatory System" (5.1.5.2.1).  The core element of the model is a risk index, 
which is established by weighting various phytosanita ry factors pertinent to th e import into the EU of 
cut roses from India over the latest 3 years. Th e factors include the number of the consignments 
intercepted for the presence of a regulated pest; the estimated mobility of the regulated pest at the 
most mobile stage to which the pest could d evelop on cut roses and any other factor relevant to a 
determination of the phytosanitary risk index (other non-compliances, e.g. missing additional declaration on the Phytosanitary Certificate). Matching the establis hed risk index against the number 
of consignments of cut roses from India on which a physical plant health inspections has been carried 
out at import into the EU then leads to a resulting percentage.   2 Not exactly. The level of reduced frequency of  plant health checks is annually reviewed on the 
basis of phytosanitary factors specified in our answer to question 1. Interceptions of the consignments 
for the presence of regulated pests (7, 11 and 14 in 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively), which may 
lead to rejection or destruction of the consignm ent, are an important element in reviewing the 
reduced frequency, but not the only one.  3 The EC concept of a reduced frequency of plant health checks provides, where appropriate 
(see footnote 1), for such a consideration. The lower the number of non-compliances (including 
rejections) in an import of an eligible commodity of a given origin to the EU, th e lower, in principle, 
the minimum frequency of plant health  checks thereof may be allowed.    
 (1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 1756/2004 (OJ L 313, 12.10.2004, p.6) 
 
Question 3 
1. Will the EC provide data on the import inte nsity of government procurement in the EU? 
2. Does a company established in the EU have any preference vis-a-vis imports in access to the 
procurement by EU governments? 
 
Answer
 
1 As explained in the Secretariat's report, id entifying the actual nationality of a firm is 
extremely difficult as the structure of its capital is not alwa ys known and the potential nationality of 
the bidder does not necessarily reflect the trade  flow resulting from the contract award.  
The EC is currently considering how to implement the principles laid down in Regulation (EC) 
No 716/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2007 on Community statistics 
on the structure and activity of foreign affiliat es  [Official Journal L 171 of 29.06.2007] and the 
Recommendations Manual on the Pr oduction of Foreign Affiliates Statistics in the area of public 
procurement (please refer to the following website http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_O FFPUB/KS-RA-07-002/EN/KS-RA-07-002-EN.PDF). 
 2 If a foreign company originates from a c ountry with which the EU has an agreement on 
procurement, it enjoys the benefit of equal treatment and non-discrimination when it participates in a 
procurement procedure in the EU. In this case, such company is on equal footing as a company 
established in the EU.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 445 
 
 
 The situation is different if a company originat es from a third country with which the EU has no 
agreement on procurement compete with companies estab lished in the EU.  In this case, the foreign 
company does not enjoy any legal right to partic ipate in a procurement procedure in the EU. 
 
Question 4 
Does the EC have any proposals to harmonize cu stoms procedures and technical requirements across 
the EU?   If so, can the EC provide us with the road map for the proposed harmonization?    Answer
 
At the EC level, the rules for customs procedu res are harmonized over its customs territory since they 
are laid down in the Community Custom s Code and its implementing provisions. 
 As regards the harmonisation of technical requi rements for industrial products, an overview of 
existing legislation, pending legislative proposal s as well as proposals under preparation in each  
industry sector can be obtained from the Europa web pages of the European Commission’s Enterprise 
and Industry Directorate-General: http: //ec.europa.eu/enterp rise/index_en.htm. 
 For a more general overview of th e EC’s current legislative priori ties beyond the area of industrial 
products, reference is made to the European Co mmission legislative work programme for 2009 and 
its annexed Roadmaps:  
http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/ programmes/index_en.htm. 
 On a horizontal level, it is also worth mentioning that an important package of three legislative instruments aiming to enhance free movement of go ods in the EC single market was adopted in July 
2008: 
 - EU Council and the European Parliament Decision No 768/2008 of 9 July 2008 
provides for a common framework for the marketing of products (so-called "New 
Legislative Framework - NLF").
107  
  
The NLF sets out the common framework of general principles and reference 
provisions for the drawing up of EC har monising legislation on the marketing of 
products. When EC harmonising product legi slation is newly developed or revised, 
the EU legislator is expected to base itself on the NLF, and to depart from it only if 
duly justified on account of sector specificities. 
 
- Regulation (EC) 765/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 
2008 setting out the requirements for accreditation and market surveillance relating to the marketing of products
108. 
 
 This Regulation provides for the implementation by 1 January 2010 of a 
comprehensive legal framework for accred itation based on common principles for its 
operation and organisation as well as of a common framework for market surveillance. 
 
                                                     
 
 107 OJEU L218, 13.8.2008, p. 82, available at:  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:218:0082:0128:EN:PDF. 
108 OJEU L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 30, available at :  
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:218:0030:0047:EN:PDF. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 446  
 
 - Regulation (EC) No. 764/2008 of the Eur opean Parliament and of the Council of 
9 July 2008 laying down procedures relati ng to the application of certain national 
technical rules to products lawfully ma rketed in another Member State and repealing 
Decision No. 3052/95/EC.
109 
This regulation establishes the procedur al requirements to correctly apply the 
principle of mutual recognition which deri ves from the case-law of the Court of 
Justice of the EC and is one of the means of ensuring the free movement of goods within the internal market in those area s where technical requirements have not been 
harmonised at EC level.  Thanks to the Regulation, the application of the mutual 
recognition principle will be further enhan ced. According to the Regulation, if a 
Member State intends to adopt a decision to  restrict access to its market to a product 
lawfully placed on the market of another Member State, it will have to follow the 
procedural requirements established by th e Regulation (notification of the draft 
decision to the economic operator concerned , allowing a period for comments, etc.) 
and duly justify any such decision on the basis of technical or scientific evidence.  
The Regulation also aims to clarify which product categories the principle of mutual 
recognition applies to by creating a non-ex haustive list of products which are not 
subject to EC harmonisation legislation. The European Commission is in the process 
of drawing up this non-exhaustive list of  products, which will be accessible on the 
Europa website
110 from 13 May 2009. 
 
Question 5 
The mutual recognition principle with respect to  technical regulations allows an EU company 
producing and marketing their products as per the tec hnical regulations/standards of the Member State 
in which it is established, the freedom to market this product throughout the EU single market without 
having to comply with any further legislation. This freedom of producing in accordance with the 
technical regulation/standards of one Member Stat e and marketing across the EU without using the 
specific Member State (the regulations of which ha ve been used to produce the product) as an entry 
point for distribution is not available to an Indian exporter. The Indian exporter is required to comply 
with the technical regulations/ standards of each d estination country separately in order to access the 
so called "common market". This is effectively a no n-tariff barrier in exploiting the potential of the 
"common market".  
 
Will the EC clarify the rationale behind this principle?  Does this treatment to non-EU exporters vi olate national treatment commitment of EU? 
 
What is the recourse available to Indian exporters  whose products are denied the benefits of the 
mutual recognition principle?  What is the recourse available to Indian exporters whose product is not allowed to circulate freely in 
the EU market in accordance with the mutual recognition principle?  Answer
 
The principle of mutual recognition applies in those areas which are not harmonised by EC 
legislation. In the non-harmonised area Member States are free to enact national measures subject 
only to the EC Treaty. In particular, in the free movement of goods, these national measures have to 
comply with Articles 28 to 30 of the EC Treaty.  
 
                                                      
109 OJEU L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 21, available at : 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriSe rv.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:218:0021:0029:EN:PDF. 
110 http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/r egulation/goods/mutrec_en.htm.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 447 
 
 
 In intra-EU trade in goods, according to th e mutual recognition principle, a product lawfully 
marketed in one Member State and not subject to Community harmonisation s hould be allowed to be 
marketed in any other Member State,  even when the product does not fully comply with the technical 
rules of the Member State of destination.  
The new Regulation No 764/2008
111 (hereinafter: the "Mutual Recognition Regulation") aims inter 
alia to clarify which product ca tegories the principle of mutual recognition applies to by creating a 
non-exhaustive list of products which are not subject to EC harmonisation legislation. 
 As stated in Article 24 of the EC Treaty products  coming from a third country shall be considered to 
be in free circulation in a Member State if th e import formalities have been complied with and any 
customs duties or charges having equivalent eff ect which are payable have been levied in that 
Member State, and if they have not benefited from a total or partial drawback of such duties or 
charges.  
There is no distinction between imported and EC m anufactured products once they have been lawfully 
placed on the market of a Member State. Hence, if a product manufactured in India is lawfully placed 
on the market of a Member State, this product is a ccorded the same treatmen t as any other EC made 
product which is lawfully placed on the EC territo ry. Therefore, the Indian and EC products benefit 
from the free movement across the borders of the Member States under the same conditions, in 
accordance with the princi ple of mutual recognition. 
 
From 13 May 2009 and according to Article 6(1) of the Mutual Recognition Regulation, Member 
State’s authorities have to send to the economic operato r a written notice of their intention to deny the 
access to its market. Therefore, a ll "actors" (whether they are from third countries or from 
EU Member States) will be notified by written notice by the competent authority of the Member State 
which intends to ban the access to the market.   
 As stated in #3 above, Member State’s authorities ha ve to notify their intention of not allowing the 
marketing of a given product to the economic opera tor concerned, specifying the technical rule on 
which the decision is based and providing technica l or scientific evidence that such decision is 
appropriate and justified on the public  interest grounds set out in Article 30 of the EC Treaty. The 
economic operator will then have at least 20 worki ng days after the receipt of such notice to submit 
comments. If the Member State, after the receipt of  the economic operator’s comments, decides to ban 
the access, this decision has to be notified to  the economic operator and to the Commission.  
The decision has to specify the remedies avail able under the law in force in the Member State 
concerned and the time limits applying to such reme dies. Such a decision may be challenged before 
national courts or tribunals or other instances of appeals. 
 CHINA III
 
 
Industrial Supports 
 
Question 1 Could the EC Delegation please provide informati on on the establishment and implementation of the 
European Globalization Adjustment Fund scheme?  
 
                                                     
 
 111 Regulation (EC) No 764/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 July 2008 laying 
down procedures relating to the application of certain na tional technical rules to products lawfully marketed in 
another Member State and repealing Decision No 3052/95/EC, JO L 218, 13.8.2008, p. 21. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 448  
 
 Answer
 
The EGF was established in 2006 by the European Pa rliament and the Council as an instrument of 
solidarity, to help workers made redundant as a resu lt of changing global trade patterns to find 
another job as quickly as possible. The Fund is allowed a maximum expenditure of € 500 million per 
year, which it may spend only on active labour marke t measures in favour of redundant workers, plus 
a small amount (0.35% of the total) for tec hnical assistance in order to operate the Fund. 
 The EGF started operating at th e beginning of 2007, and has received 17 separate requests for 
assistance so far from nine Member States. The to tal amount requested to date is €83,267,897, which 
the Member States must match (the EGF co-finan ces actions at 50%). Over € 67 million of the 
requested amount has been paid out, with the ot her applications still being assessed by the budgetary 
authority. 19,562 workers are targeted for assist ance by the 17 requests for assistance. 
 In 2008 the Commission proposed a modification of  the EGF in order to allow it to respond more 
flexibly to the effects of the global economic and financial crisis. This proposed modification is 
awaiting the final approval of the European Parliame nt and the Council. When this is given, the EGF 
will be able to respond to smaller redundancy events (500 job losses in place of 1000), to offer 
assistance for 24 months (in place of 12), to off er a higher maximum intervention rate (65% in place 
of 50% of the total cost of the actions), and will be able to respond where the event has been caused 
by the current economic crisis. The provision rel ating to the crisis, and the increased intervention 
rate, are limited to the period up to  the end of 2011, at which time th e EGF will revert to the original 
criteria and a 50% intervention rate. 
 No EGF assistance is offered  to companies, or for restructuring. All of the assistance is directed at 
the redundant workers, to facilitate their ret ention in, or return to, the labour market. 
 
Question 2 (Paragraph 133 on Page 76 of the Secretariat Report) Could the EC Delegation please provide 
information on the annual budget of the common Resear ch Fund for Coal and Steel (RFCS) in the last 
five years? 
 
Answer
 
The budget of the Research for Coal and Steel Progr amme (RFCS) is coming from the yearly accrued 
interests produced by the management of the asset s left by the European Coal and Steel Community 
Treaty which expired in 2003. The starting year of the Programme was 2003. The budget allocation 
for the past 5 years was around 270 M€, about 50 M€/year.  
Please note that this programme is separate from  the European Seventh Framework Programme for 
Research and Development (FP7). Different rules apply as  the programme has its own legal basis. On 
the other hand, as FP7 the RFCS Programme funds  entirely pre-competitive research based on 
scientific excellence.  Question 3 
(Paragraph 134 on Page 76 of the Secretariat Report) Could the EC Delegation please explain how it 
can ensure that Member States’ assistance to the hard coal industry would not result in lower price 
than in a third country and distort the internal market competition? 
 
Answer
 
State aid to the hard coal industry is governed by  Council Regulation 1407/2002 on State aid to the 
coal industry (OJ L205, 2.8.2002, p.1). Article 4( c) of the Regulation specifies that aid may be 
considered compatible with the common market onl y if is satisfies the following condition: "the 
amount of aid per tonne coal equivalent may not ca use delivered prices for the Community coal to be  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 449 
 
 
 lower than those for coal of a similar quality fr om third countries". The Commission always checks 
the fulfilment of this condition before authorizing aid.  
 Promotion of SMEs  
Question 4 It would be appreciated if the EC Delegation could provide the following information with regard to 
the SME development promotion:  1) information on the development of SMEs in 2007 and 2008, including analysis on 
development trend, if any, and the numbe r of newly established and close-downs. 
 2) legislations and specific measures adopted since 2007 to support SMEs; SME-related contents 
in Small Enterprises Act, European Regional De velopment Fund (ERDF) and the Competitiveness 
and Innovation Framework Program (CIP[2007-13]) ; and measures to be taken to promote the 
development of SMEs. 
 3) relevant budgets of EC and Member State gove rnments in SMEs development promotion; and 
information in respect of financing facilities for SMEs since 2007.  
 
Answer
 
(1) Data on SMEs are available on Eurostat we bsite. The data and publications are available 
here:  http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/ page?_pageid=2293,59872848,2293_68133857&_dad=porta
l&_schema=PORTAL Please note that the most recent publication on SMEs. 
(http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_ OFFPUB/KS-SF-08-031/EN/KS-SF-08-031-EN.PDF) 
include data for 2005 reference year and that data fo r 2007/2008 are not yet available. The most 
recent data on companies demography are published here:  http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_ OFFPUB/KS-SF-08-100/EN/KS-SF-08-100-EN.PDF 
 (2) The European Union has limited competences in many policy areas which directly affect 
SMEs. However the Commission plays a key role by influencing MS action, monitoring progress in 
EU policy at EU level, in particular through the Gr owth and Jobs strategy, and contributing to the 
exchange of good practices (through conferences, datab ases or initiatives such as the European 
Enterprise Awards that promotes entrepreneurial in itiatives).  The main EU initiative to support SME 
is the "Small Business Act" for Europe (SBA) adopt ed in June 2008 The SBA includes a package of 
concrete specific measures to suppor t SMEs development in different a reas such as entrepreneurship, 
R&D and innovation, burden reduction or access to  credit. Details on SBA and its measure are 
available here: http://ec.europa.eu/ent erprise/entrepreneurship/sba_en.htm).  
Concerning the ERDF (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_po licy/funds/feder/index_en.htm), it aims at 
strengthening the economic and social cohesion in the EU by correcting imbalances between the EU 
regions. In this context the ERDF finances among others actions investing in companies and in 
particular SMEs to create sustainable jobs. The ac tions can be taken in different areas including 
innovation and entrepreneurship, tourism, R&D etc.    The CIP programme on its side is meant to encourage the competitiveness of EU companies 
and SMEs are the main target of the supported ac tions. The programme include a wide range of 
activities under three pillars: innovation and entrepren eurship, renewable ener gy/energy efficiency, 
information and communication technologies. Detaile d information on the different financed actions 
is available on: http://ec.europa.eu/cip/index_en.htm  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 450  
 
 (3) The main current EC financing programmes st arted in 2007 and will close in 2013. While 
some of these programmes (or part of them) include  pre-allocated budget for SMEs others have not a 
specific SME budget. However also in this case the SME participation is encouraged and specific 
measures are taken in this sense (examples: dedicated calls for pr oposals, targets for participation, 
increase in co-financing for SMEs etc.). This said , at the moment we do not have the total budget 
effectively allocated to SMEs. This information w ill be available only at the end of the programming 
period.    Information on financing and not financing fac ilities for SMEs provided by the EC is 
available on: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sme/funding_en.htm. 
 
 Concerning Member States support to SMEs, they can use different instruments to boost SMEs development such as general support me asures, measures for providing guidance and/or 
assistance, training activates, burden reductions st rategies, financial support etc. Member States do 
not have normally to notify this measures to the Comm ission (except in the case of a State aid with the 
obligation of notification) therefore the Commission has  not at its disposal the precise figures for 
SME support at national level. However, MS good practices are collected and published in a database  available on the Commission website  http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/ent erprise_policy/charter/gp/index.cf m?fuseaction=practice.list More 
information will be collected in future in th e framework of the monitoring process of the 
implementation of the "Small Business Act" for Europe.  
 
Financial Market  Question 5 
According to the Secretariat Report, some Member States have enhanced the liquidity management of 
financial institutions to tackle the financial cr isis. The Commission also published Guidance on how 
Member States can best support financial institutions  under the crisis. Could the EC Delegation please 
explain in further detail what specific arrangements it has made and/or will make to support financial 
institutions and what are the measures to strengthen the liquidity management? 
 
Answer
 
The changes proposed by the Commission in banking regulation, including liquidity management can 
be found under this link: http://ec.europa.eu/internal_ma rket/bank/regcapital/index_en.htm 
 
The European parliament will vote on the changes in Ma y, so the final text might change compared to 
the proposal.  The most recent update of the list of state aid me asures approved for financial institutions can be 
found at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.d o?reference=MEMO/09/174&format=HTML&aged=0
&language=EN&guiLanguage=en 
 Question 6 
Could the EC Delegation please describe how it seeks to strengthen the financial supervision 
coordination and cooperation among Member States  under the current circumstances, and whether 
there are any systemic arrangements to cope  with and dispose the inner-regional risks? 
 
Answer
 
The European Commission has presented on March 4 an ambitious agenda for change to restore a 
stable financial system. These proposals cover five key areas: strengthening the supervisory 
architecture, improving and removing gaps in regul ation, protecting consumers, small investors and  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 451 
 
 
 SMEs, improving incentives to reduce excessive shor t-term risk-taking and improving sanctions for 
infringements of the rules. On supervision,  the European Commission will present a supervision 
communication before the end of May and legislati ve proposals in the autumn. It will include the 
establishment a European Systemic Risk Council -  to  oversee the stability of  the financial system as 
a whole -  and a European System of Financial Su pervisors, combining the advantages of a European 
framework with the indispensable expertise of local supervisors.  
 Question 7 
We would appreciate it if the EC Delegation could explain: 
a) What are the current policies concerning the ma rket access for non-EC financial institutions?  
b) Have there been any changes to the policies re garding the investment and M&A activities of non-
EU financial institutions in EU and Member States? 
c) How would the EC protect the interests of i nvestors from non-EU countries when it deals with 
risk control of EU financial institutions? 
 
Answer
 
a) National legislation has to comply with EC Treaty provisions and secondary law (Banking 
Directive etc).   b) The Commission is monitoring that Member St ates legislation does not conflict with the EC 
Treaty and secondary law. Free movement of capital is  a freedom enshrined in the EC Treaty which 
may only be restricted for reasons of prudential supervision and other reasons in general interest, 
respecting the principle of proportionality. Legislative proposals in the energy sector (gas/e lectricity) would not seem to concern financial 
institutions directly. Otherwise a financial services question.  
c) The free movement of capital also applies to investors from third countries in EU financial 
institutions. As stated above, restrictions must be in accordance with EC law.  Telecommunications  Question 8 
Paragraph 140 on Page 144 of the Secretariat Report notes that four institutions, namely the 
Communications Committee, the Radio Spectrum Committee, the European Regulators Group 
ERGand the Radio Spectrum Policy Group are in charge of the telecoms regulatory work. Could the EC Delegation please brief the respective func tions of the four institutions, and how they 
coordinate in practice?  Answer
 
The Communications Committee (COCOM ), which is made up of Member State representatives in 
the area of telecoms, is the Comitology committee  assisting the Commission in carrying out its 
executive powers under the regulatory framework and also  with regard to the .eu top level Internet 
domain. COCOM issues its formal opinions on draft implementing measures submitted by the 
Commission in accordance with specific procedures prov ided in the EU's Comitology Decision. (The 
comitology process allows the Commission to discu ss its proposals with national administrations 
before implementation in order to ensure that any  measure is optimised to the various national 
situations). In addition, COCOM provides the Commission with a platform through which to 
exchange information with the Member States on ma rket developments and regulatory activities as 
well as to gather information through surveys. 
 Some of the issues dealt with by COCOM recently in clude mobile and fixed termination rates, mobile 
television, the 116 numbering range, selection and au thorisation of systems providing mobile satellite 
services, mobile communications on board aircraft, measures in the framework of market reviews and WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 452  
 
 the implementation of the single European emergency number 112. The Commission keeps COCOM 
informed about the developments in the other relevant bodies – RSC, ERG and RSPG – and their 
proceedings are coordinated where necessary to co mplement each other. On e of the recent examples 
of such coordination is mobile communi cations onboard aircraft, where COCOM and RSC 
committees worked in parallel on two distinct but  interrelated draft measures proposed by the 
Commission concerning this issue (see  below for further information). 
 For more information please c onsult the following website: 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/poli cy/ecomm/implementation_enforcement/comm_committee
/index_en.htm 
 
The European Regulators Group (ERG)  was created by a Commission Decision
112 to act as an 
advisory group to assist the European Commission in consolidating the internal market for electronic 
communications and services. In contrast to the COCO M, the Commission is not formally required to 
consult the ERG on specified draft measures. 
 
The ERG provides an interface between national reg ulatory authorities and the Commission in such a 
way as to contribute to the development of the intern al market and to the consistent application of the 
regulatory framework. It enables NRAs to s hare views on and experiences of implementing and 
applying the framework taking into account devel opments in the market and technological changes. 
 
The ERG is comprised of the Heads of the Natio nal Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) of the Member 
States. In addition to the twenty-seven members fr om EU Member States, there are four EFTA States 
(Switzerland, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein) and two EU Accession/ Candidate States (Turkey 
and Croatia) who participate in the Group as observers.  
The Radio Spectrum Committee (RSC)  looks at the specific technical issues required to implement 
the broader radio spectrum policy. The RSC was established in 2002 under Decision 2002/676/EC ("the Radio Spectrum Decision") and is composed of Member State representatives and is chaired by 
the Commission.  Its main role is the development of decisions with  respect to technical implementation measures that 
ensure harmonised conditions across Europe for the availability and efficient use of radio spectrum. 
It also develops measures to ensure that inform ation on the use of radio spectrum is provided 
accurately and in a timely manner.  The activities of the RSC are established in a wo rk programme which allo ws prioritisation and 
scheduling of the various topics and issues it is  required to address. The Committee exercises its 
functions in accordance with specific procedures set out in the EU’s Comitology Decision.  
 The Radio Spectrum Policy Group , established under Commission Decision 2002/622/EC is a high-
level advisory group assisting the Commission in the development of radio spectrum policy in the 
Community. Its members are repres entatives of Member States and the Commission. The group is 
chaired by a Member State representative, with a one-year term. 
 The Group contributes to the development of a radio spectrum policy in the Community that takes into 
account not only technical parameters but also eco nomic, political, cultural, strategic, health and 
social considerations, as well as the various potenti ally conflicting needs of radio spectrum users with 
a view to ensuring that a fair, non-discrimi natory and proportionate balance is achieved. 
 
                                                     
 
112 2002/627/EC, as amended by 2004/641/EC and 2007/804/EC.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 453 
 
 
 The RSPG adopts opinions, which assist and advi se the Commission on radio spectrum policy issues, 
on coordination of policy approaches and, where appropriate, on harmonised conditions with regard 
to the availability and efficient use of radio spect rum necessary for the establishment and functioning 
of the internal market.   
The RSPG consults extensively and in a forward-looking manner on technological, market and 
regulatory developments relating to the use of r adio spectrum in the context of EU policies on 
electronic communications, transport and research and development. Such consultations involve all 
relevant radio spectrum users, both commercial and non-commercial, as well as any other interested 
party. 
 
Collaboration The strategic output of RSPG deliberations nat urally supports and informs concrete regulatory 
actions on spectrum harmonisation, as undertaken by the Commission and RSC.  This has for instance 
been the case with the introduction of further flexibility in spectrum allocation for electronic 
communication systems, where an RSPG Opinion has b een followed by specific regulatory decisions 
in RSC.  There is also active collaboration between RSC/ RSPG and their "sister groups" in electronic 
communications, i.e. respectively COCOM with RS C and ERG with RSPG.  This collaboration is 
sustained by liaison statements, reports and join t working groups, as well as a partially overlapping 
attendance to the various groups. The object of th e collaboration notably relates to policy issues 
addressed jointly by RSPG and ERG (for instance co mpetition issues relating to the use of radio 
spectrum or the development of wireless broadband), as well as common regulatory actions (such as 
the development of common EU licensing approach es in COCOM where spectrum allocation has 
been harmonised by RSC). 
 
Question 9 
Telecommunications right-of-way is a key resource to telecom network construction. The 2007 TPR 
of the EC revealed that some Member States’ pract ice of issuing the right-of-way was not transparent. 
Could the EC Delegation please provide info rmation on new policies and the relevant 
implementations in this area in the past two years?  Answer
 
In view of the difficulties reported in 2007, severa l Member States have taken steps to improve the 
situation in the area of issuing the rights of way. Latvia modified national rules concerning the 
granting of rights of way in order to strengthen th e role of a central authority in the process. The 
Cypriot authorities made efforts to harmonise proce dures for granting rights of way and to tackle any 
technical difficulties related to this process. And in Greece, a joint ministerial decision is expected 
setting out the framework and the procedures fo r rights of way; its adoption would facilitate 
infrastructure development and ultimat ely infrastructure competition. 
More details can be found in the 14th Progress Report on the Single European Electronic 
Communication Market, which was published on 25 March 2009, and which presents the state of play 
in the telecoms market for 2008 at EU level and for each Member State. The report can be found at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/poli cy/ecomm/library/communications_reports/annualreports
/14th/index_en.htm.   The section "Rights of way" at page 74 of this Re port provides a general overview of developments 
and relevant Commission's action in this area. 
 The package of proposals for the reform of the EU regulatory framework for electronic 
communications, which is currently in Second Readi ng in the European Pa rliament and in the 
Council, also reinforces the powers of the national regulatory authorities in relation to the sharing of WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 454  
 
 network elements and associated facilities such as ducts, masts, and antennas, the entry into buildings 
and a better coordination of civil works. Improv ing facility sharing ca n significantly improve 
competition and lower the overall financial and envir onmental cost for undertakings of deploying 
electronic communications infrastructure, in par ticular for new fibre-optic access network.  
 
Question 10 There have been some difficulties in the EC ma rket in implementing such measures as local loop 
unbundling, wholesale line rental and bit stream access etc. which are favorable to new entrants to the 
market. Could the EC Delegation please describe what the specific problems are and what measures have been taken to address the problems?  Answer
 
Effective competition has been instrumental in  the development of broadband markets in particular. 
Member States have continued to perform well, wh ere competitive conditions, building on either the 
existence of alternative platforms or early market liberalisation, have been in place for a relatively 
long time. Remaining issues are addressed by inde pendent NRA's with strong regulatory tools under 
the supervision of the Commission, which is using its powers under the Treaty and the Framework Directive to ensure a competitive market to the benefit of the consumers.  
 Bitstream access enables new entrants to provide retail broadband access services to end users. It is 
therefore an important step for new entrants before  investing in a more comprehensive roll out of 
their own network, leading towards access by way of local loop unbundling ("LLU"). After a certain 
time, competitors tend to rely on a combination of  both forms of access, investing in their own 
infrastructure up to the incumbent's local loop whe re economically possible, i.e. normally in more 
densely populated regions, whereas they depend on  bitstream access in rural areas.  
 
As far as local loop unbundling is concerned, due to the high costs of the duplication of the "last mile" 
of PSTN networks, the former monopolists s till enjoy a very strong position in the market for 
wholesale unbundled access. Therefore the market was found to be non-competitive by all NRAs that 
have notified this market thus far. The NRAs have, in general, imposed the whole set of remedies  
(access accompanied by price control, transpa rency, non-discrimination, cost-accounting and 
accounting separation). The rate of take-up of LLU varies widely across the EU . In general the take-
up of LLU products had been quite slow in the be ginning, but recently it has been growing at an 
accelerated pace. In some countries some problems ar ose as to what the appropriate regulated price 
of LLU should be. In its comments on a recen t notification under the Article 7 process, the 
Commission pointed to the need for greater dialogu e between NRAs with the aim of improving the 
consistency of approach to costing methodologies across the EU. 
 
In the wholesale broadband access markets the bela ted application of remedies sometimes impaired 
the effectiveness of regulation. In several cases, the points in the network at which bitstream access 
had to be granted were either not specified or insuf ficient to enable the development of competition. 
Price regulation was not always effective and based  on different price setting methods across the EU. 
Ineffective price regulation in some Member St ates was found to give rise to distortions of 
competition, mainly thro ugh margin squeezes.  
 As regards both LLU and wholesale  broadband access a new challenge for regulators is the roll-out 
of next generation access networks. The deployment of networks based on new technologies (predominantly fibre) changes the economies of providing telecommunications services and new 
bottlenecks are created. This requires regulators to  rethink and reconfigure the remedies applied both 
in the LLU and wholesale broadband access market. In  order to ensure that a consistent regulatory 
approach is applied throughout the EU, the Commiss ion is now working towards a Recommendation 
on regulated access to next generation access networks.      WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 455 
 
 
 Wholesale line rental (WLR) is a facility offered to  alternative operators that  allows them to rent a 
subscriber line on wholesale terms, and to resell it to an end-user. The aim of WLR is to promote 
competition by addressing the fixed in cumbent's SMP in the relevant ret ail access market (as defined), 
and in many cases to enhance the effectiveness of  the Carrier Selection/Carrier Pre-Selection 
(CS/CPS) remedy adopted in the various calls ma rkets. Not all Member States have mandated WLR 
and the regulatory landscape which is fragmented bot h as to its means (the analytical process of 
remedy formulation) and as to its end (the eff ectiveness in practice of those remedies), and in 
particular regarding its necessity, the costing formula applied, the availability of WLR in conjunction 
with CS and CPS remedies and the vari ety of ancillary regulatory obligations that might attach to the 
provisioning of WLR. In some Ar ticle 7 notifications the Commission has requested that the NRAs in 
question consider the imposition of WLR as a remedy,  subject to a price control mechanism, to avoid 
the risks of excessive pricing by the fixed incu mbent. Specifically, in one case the Commission 
commented that WLR conditions must leave a sufficie nt margin with retail prices to avoid margin 
squeezes, but on the other hand must not discour age investments in LLU in areas where such 
investment is economically feasible. 
 
The sections "Competition and regulation" on page 43, "Broadband implementa tion" on page 55 and 
"Fixed implementation" on page 58 of the 14t h Progress Report on the Single European Electronic 
Communication Market provide a general overview  of developments and relevant Commission's 
action in this area. http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/poli cy/ecomm/library/communications_reports/annualreports
/14th/index_en.htm. 
 A new challenge for regulators is the roll-out of n ext generation access networks (fibre in particular). 
This will require regulators to rethink and reconfigu re the remedies. In ord er to ensure that a 
consistent regulatory approach is applied thr oughout the EU, the Commission is now working 
towards a Recommendation on regulated access to  next generation access networks.    
 Contingency Measures   Question 11 
Paragraph 55 on Page 53 of the Secretariat Report not es that special rules apply to the determination 
of normal value in the case of imports from "non-market economy countries". 
It is noted that according to Article 2.7(c) of  the EC Anti-dumping Basic Regulation, enterprises 
applying for Market Economy Treatment have to sa tisfy five standards. However, the Commission 
enjoys great discretion in the application of this  Article which led to differentiated treatment of 
Chinese enterprises in various cases. Even in the sa me anti-dumping investigation, different Chinese 
companies might be differentiated. The Commissi on’s practice concerning the granting of market 
economy status has not only exerted huge uncertainty  for Chinese enterprises to defend their interests 
in EC anti-dumping investigations but also has add unreasonably heavy burden to Chinese enterprises. 
It is also noted that the Commi ssion keeps the practice of not disclosing sufficient information with 
respect to analogue countries which makes it difficu lt or even impossible for Chinese enterprises to 
figure out how dumping margins are calculated. Therefore, their defending rights are deprived 
accordingly. 
 Could the EC Delegation please provide some clarifications on its normal practices when implementing Article 2.7 of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulations? 
 
Answer
 
The conditions under which companies located in  China are entitled to receive market economy 
treatment for the purposes of anti-dumping investigati ons are laid out in Article 2.7(c) of the EU 
Basic anti-dumping regulation, which are in comp liance with the WTO rights and obligations towards WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 456  
 
 China. These provisions are applied in a consis tent and uniform manner in all anti-dumping 
investigations.   Question 12 
The implementation of Article 9.5 of the Basic An ti-dumping Regulations brings excessive burden of 
proof for Chinese enterprises to defe nd their interests and also brings  uncertainty and unpredictability 
in adoption of Chinese enterprises’ individual export  price. China believes that EU shall amend its 
anti-dumping regulations regarding individual tr eatment to assure compliance with WTO Anti-
dumping Agreement, i.e. Article 6.10 to make comp arison of normal value with export price of each 
individual exporter participated in  anti-dumping investigation process. 
 
Could the EC Delegation please describe the rationale  for maintaining individual treatment? Does the 
EC have any plan to abolish the provision of Article 9.5 of the Basic Anti-dumping Regulation?  
 
Answer
 
The EU is not planning to amend Article 9.5 of th e EU basic anti-dumping regulation. This provision 
is in full conformity with the WTO rights and obligations of the EU. 
 
Question 13 
In various EU anti-dumping investigations which are initiated upon complaints made by industry 
associations, the Commission does not disclose the specific information of supporting enterprises 
intentionally (e.g. the situation of fastener a nd galvanized cases). The Commission also refuses to 
disclose the names, addresses and production of complaining enterprises by resorting to protection of confidentiality as an excuse. This l ack of transparency has violated Article 6.4 and 6.5 of the WTO 
Anti-dumping Agreement and has seriously affected  and limited stakeholders including Chinese 
defending enterprises in conducting further investigati ons concerning the "eligibility" (Article 4.1 of 
ADA) and "representability" (Article 5.4 of ADA) of  the complainants and making effective defense 
thereon. In addition, when it comes to investigations con cerning injuries and calculations of injury margins, 
the Commission has always been quoting confidential ity as excuses therefore only disclose the injury 
indicators of the complainants within a very limited scope.   
China believes that the procedural as well as substa ntial rights of defending enterprises have been 
unreasonably deprived. How could the EC ensure the interested parties’ rights to access information 
as well as their rights to defend?  
Answer
 
Rights of parties in anti-dumping investigations are governed by the relevant provisions of the Basic 
EU anti-dumping regulation, including Articles 6 (investigation), 18 (non-cooperation), 19 
(confidentiality) and 20 (disclosure). These provisions  ensure that all interested parties can exercise 
their rights of defence by having access to the non- confidential file, being heard, making submissions 
and receiving disclosure of the essential facts and cons iderations on the basis of which measures are 
imposed. The EU is confident that the above-men tioned provisions and thei r application is in full 
conformity with its WTO rights and obligations . 
 Question 14 
Paragraph 56 on Page 53 of the Secr etariat Report notes that most of the applied AD duties were ad 
valorem and up to 77.6%. It is noted that the 77.6% AD duty was imposed on air compressor 
originating in China. In this AD case, the Commission once advised non-imposition of definitive 
measures on the basis that such imposition would no t be in the interests of the Community. This 
advice also gained support from the Anti-dumping A dvisory Committee. Shockingly however, in only 
one month, a resolution was adopted to impose hi gh anti-dumping duties, on an opposite basis that 
such imposition would be in the interests of the Community. Such a sharp switch within very short  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 457 
 
 
 period of time led to serious questioning on the impar tiality and objectivity of this case. Could the EC 
Delegation please provide explanations on the fina l definitive determination of this AD case? 
 
Answer  
All interested parties, including the authorities of China, received full disclosure of the essential facts 
and considerations on the basis of which definiti ve measures were imposed in the above-mentioned 
case. The EU would like to refer China to the publis hed determinations as well as to the disclosure 
documents for the clarifications sought as to the basis for th e imposition of the measures. 
 Question 15  
It is noted that in the air compressor and fasten er anti-dumping investigations the Commission applied 
double standards to the EU invested companies a nd other Chinese participating companies. This 
application of double standards has become normal practice of the Commission recently.  
Although similar situation prevailed in both EU invested companies and other Chinese companies, the 
EU invested companies are regarded as satisfying the market economy standards, while in contrast 
other Chinese companies are considered failing to sa tisfy such standards. Thus, the participating 
companies that got lower AD duty were the EU i nvested companies while all the other Chinese 
companies were imposed a higher AD duty. For in stance, in the fastener AD case, the two EU 
invested companies’ anti-dumpi ng margin was 0 while the anti-dumping margins for almost all the 
other defending companies as well as over 1,000 n on-participated Chinese companies were from 
63.1% to 87%.  
Moreover, the EU invested companies that are granted more favorable treatment in AD cases are 
often invested by the EC complainants or the supporting parties. These multinational enterprises have 
been able to take advantage of their status to ma ke an abusive use of anti-dumping investigation as an 
anti-competition strategy which is in serious violation of the principle of anti-dumping.  
Could the EC Delegation please share with us its explanations  in this regard? 
 
Answer
 
The EU strongly refutes any allegation of discri minatory treatment of Chinese companies. The 
situation of each company is assessed and determin ed on the basis of technical criteria which are in 
full conformity with the EU's WTO rights and oblig ations and which are applied uniformly to all 
companies participating in any given investigation. 
 Question 16 
Both Article 4.1 of ADA and Article 4.1 (a) of th e EC Anti-dumping Basic Regulation clearly provide 
for conditions to exclude EU producers from qualifie d complainants in anti-dumping investigations. 
However, in many EU anti-dumping investigations (e.g. fasteners, stainless steel cold-rolled flat 
products and air compressors), the EU complainants  were all associated with Chinese exporters and 
were not excluded by the European Commission.  Could the EC Delegation please explain in what ci rcumstances the Commission will apply the above-
mentioned Articles to exclude related EU pr oducers from the Community industry as unqualified 
complainants? 
 
Answer
 
The exclusion of domestic producers from the notion of domestic industry is to be examined on a case 
by case basis in compliance with the provisions of  Article 4 of the WTO Agreement on anti-dumping. 
 
Question 17 
On 9th July, 2008, the EC initiated anti-dumping inv estigation against imports  of certain seamless 
tubes and pipes, of iron or ore originated in China si mply in the name of "threat of injury". According 
to the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement, the standard fo r determination of threat of injury is much WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 458  
 
 stricter than the one for determination of materi al injury. ADA provides that ‘A determination of a 
threat of injury shall be based on facts and not mere ly on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility. 
The change in circumstances which would create a si tuation in which the dumping would cause injury 
must be clearly foreseen and imminent." It is also provided in Article 5.3 of ADA that ‘The authorities shall examine the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided in the application to 
determine whether there is sufficient evidence to  justify the initiation of an investigation."  
China would take this opportunity to urge the EC to  refrain from abusing its right in the application of 
trade remedy measures. 
 
Answer
 
The investigation referred to in point 17 was initia ted and is being conducted in full compliance with 
the WTO rights and obligations of the EU, in particular those pertaining to the notion of threat of material injury. The EU only initiates investigations  upon receipt of a well documented complaint by 
the industry demonstrating that the requi rements for initation are clearly met. 
 
Question 18 Despite EC’s improvement in initiation of review investigation, it has to be noted that the EU 
importers are in a much more conve nient position to apply for review investigation than their Chinese 
counterparts. Most on-going review investigati ons have been initiated upon the request of the 
European industry and EU importers.The app lication made by Chinese exporters are often 
deliberately held off by the EC. It usually tak es a long time for the Commission to request Chinese 
applicants to provide supplementary information after their application. However, as Chinese 
applicants have submitted requested informati on, the Commission would notify that the initial 
submissions have been out dated and request the applicants to s ubmit new information. Such a practice 
of the Commission has unreasonably set up obstacl es for Chinese applicants and has seriously 
prejudiced their legal rights.  
We urge the EC to make decisions regarding the in itiation of review investigation at the request of 
qualified application within a specified period of time,  and if the decision cannot be made within such 
a period, the EC shall inform applicants of the reaso ns for failing to do so and shall provide applicants 
with procedural rights of defending and with additional chance for remedies. 
 
Answer
 
The EU refutes any allegation that requests of r eviews lodged by Chinese co mpanies are treated in a 
discriminatory manner. All requests are assessed on the basis of their technical merits and applicants 
are informed in a timely manner of any deficiency in their request.  At that stage, any delay in 
processing the request further will depend on the tim e taken  by the applicant company to correct or 
complement their request.  
 
Trademarks  Question 19 
The cost for trade mark registration in the EC is ve ry high. It is reported that the expenses generated 
in the process of trade mark searching, application,  registration and monitoring at later stages would 
exceed 10,000 USD. Such a high cost would disenc ourage SMEs from Non-EU countries to register 
their trademarks in the EU. It is strongly suggested therefore that the OHIM c onsider establishing preferential policies with regard 
to trade mark registration for SMEs and indivi dual applicants, as has been done by some other 
countries.   Answer
 
The European Commission has recently started to ev aluate the overall functioning of the Community 
trade mark system. The purpose is to establish to which extent this system is in fa ct in need of further 
development or improvement to in crease the effectiveness, efficiency and added value to the benefit of  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 459 
 
 
 users. This comprehensive evaluati on excercise will look into the various issues raised by China. 
However, as to costs the European Comission has ju st decided to lower substantially the fees for 
obtaining Community trade mark protection (for de tails see the pertinent press release to be found 
under http://ec.europa.eu/internal_market/indprop/tm/i ndex_en.htm ). In practice this means that, 
instead of paying the amount of € 1750 for the application and registration of a Community trade 
mark, businesses will be charged only an applicati on fee of € 1050 in future. Those who file their 
applications via the Internet will even be charged merely an application fee of € 900 in place of the 
total amount of € 1600 to be paid at present. These fee reductions imply that in future businesses will 
pay 40% less for obtaining a Community trade mark – and as much as 44% less when using 
electronic means. The new fee levels should be very attractive to businesses taking into account that 
trade mark protection is conferred in all 27 Member  States of the European Union. In particular, 
small and medium-sized enterprises shall profit from them.  Question 20 
The searching mechanism needs to be improved. As far as prior applications/registrations on same or 
similar trademarks are concerned, the CTM does not re ject the posterior applications/registrations on 
its own initiative, but only provides search reports from 15 Member States at the applicant’s request 
after payment is made and then it is up to the a pplicant to decide whether to continue with the 
application. The search reports do not cover all 27 Member States. PCT international searching procedures could serve as a good reference. It is suggested that OHIM 
extend the search territory coverage and provide repo rts to cover all 27 Member States, and reduce the 
prior searches that the applicants need to carry out through search ag encies so as to lessen the burden 
of applicants. 
 
Answer
 
See reply to question 19.  
 
Question 21 
There is no examination on prior applied/registered  similar trademarks. As long as the prior right-
holder does not file an opposition before the pe riod of public announcement expires, the same 
trademark registrations can be granted to the same kind of commodity by different applicants at the 
same time. To avoid such circumst ances, proprietors of CTM have to spend a considerable amount of 
time and money to monitor their trademarks. Th e OHIM will send notices to prior right-holders 
regarding public announcement on the same or simila r trademarks. However, this only applies to the 
direct applicants of CTM, but not to those who se trademarks are registered in accordance with the 
Madrid International Registration of Tradem arks and are extended to the EC market. 
It is suggested that the EC adopt substantial examination on CTM and make uniform applications 
among the Member States, in order to  help reduce the cost of applicants for monitoring and opposition 
at later stages.  
 
Answer  
See reply to question 19. 
 
Question 22 
The period of CTM opposition negotiation is too long.  The period of public announcement of CTM is 
3 months. Any natural or legal person or group can  file an opposition against the published trademark 
application during this period. There is a 2-mont h negotiation period after the opposition, which can 
be extended to as long as 24 months upon request. In practice, a 2-year negotiation period is likely to 
result in a purposely holdback of the application pr ocess of new trademarks by the opposer. We would 
like to ask the EC to take this into considera tion and shorten the period of opposition negotiation. 
 
Answer  
See reply to question 19. WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 460  
 
 Question 23 
There is a five year period after registration within which the CTM does not need to be put into 
genuine use. Such a long "non-use" period will no doubt favor the preemptive registrant with 
advanced business opportunities. It is suggested that the "non-use" period after registration be shortened.  Answer
 
See reply to question 19. 
 
Question 24 
The new Duality of organic EU-imports as put up in the new EC Regulation No. 834/2007 
discriminates against suppliers with  "Equivalence Certification". This is of particular concern to the 
great number of suppliers from developing countries,  and has largely increased the barrier for their 
products to get into the EC market. We would lik e to urge the EC to abide by the Equivalence 
Principle of the WTO/SPS Agreement and revise its  certification requirements on organic products. 
 Answer
 
It is not clear from the question what is meant by th e term "duality" as this term is not used in the EU 
legislation regarding imports of organic products. We disagree that the new import regime for 
organic products introduced by Regulations  (EC) No 834/2007 and No 1235/2008 would be 
discriminatory. The assessment of organic imports into the EU remains based on the principle of 
equivalency as regards the production and control rul es; the list of equivalent third countries remains 
unchanged and, in addition, a ne w list of equivalent control bodies and control authorities will be 
established to certify products in the third countries not  listed in the equivalency list. Furthermore, a 
new list of control bodies for compliance will be  established in order to give direct access for 
products that fully comply with the EU rules. In order to allow a smooth changeover from one system 
to another and not to disturb the trade, the syst em of import authorisations granted by the EU 
Member States on a case-by-case basis will be main tained until 2013. In conclusion, the new EU 
system for imports of organic products is fully in line with the WTO/SPS Agreement and does not 
create any trade barriers. On the contrary, we believe that the new system will be more stable and 
thus will have a positive effect on the international trade.  
CANADA 
 
 Question 1 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; (iii) 
Other Charges; (a) Value-added tax: paragraph 22, page 43: 
Canada thanks the EC for its answer to question 11. 
Canada would appreciate if the EC could define the "standard rate," "reduced  rate" and "super reduced 
rate" as noted in the table. Specifically, please describe any limitations on the possible coverage or tax-base of the reduced and super-reduced rate , as outlined in relevant EC legislation. 
 
Answer
 
As regards the Community legal provisions on VAT ra tes, reference is made to Articles 93 to 129 of 
the (VAT) Directive2006/112/EC as amende d (most recently by Directive 2009/47/CE) . 
 The standard rate
 is the normal rate to be applied in the ab sence of other specific rules: see Art 96-97 
(may not be less than 15% currently). 
 
Reduced rates  are exception to the standard rate (see Ar t 98 -99): Member States MAY (there is no 
obligation) apply either one or two reduced rates, which currently may not be less than 5%. As a rule, 
Member States can apply reduced rates only to supp lies of goods or services in the categories set out 
in Annex III to the above mentioned Directive. How ever, particular, special or temporary provisions  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 461 
 
 
 (so called "rates derogations" which in fact prov ide for exceptions to the exception) allow certain 
Member States to derogate from this framework (see Art 109 -129). For example, the Czech Republic 
may, until 31 December 2010, continue to apply a re duced rate of not less than 5% to the supply of 
construction work for residential hous ing not provided as part of a social policy, excluding building 
materials (see Art 123 (b) ). For this last case it is to be noted that the cons truction of housing as part 
of a social policy is covered by the Annex III abo ve-mentioned and is thus subject to the "general" 
rules on reduced VAT rates.  "Super reduced" (and "zero") rates
 are also part of the "rates derogations" (see Art 109-129) and 
allow certain Member States to continue to have ra tes at a level below 5%. Under these Community 
provisions zero rates are labelled as "exemptions  with deductibility of VAT paid at the preceding 
stage".  Question 2 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; (iv) 
Duty and tax exemptions and con cessions: paragraph 31, pages 47-48:  
Canada thanks the EC for providing the details in the answer to question 14. In its answer, the EC 
makes reference to "compensating products" as qualifying to benefit from inward processing and 
inward processing drawback provisions. Can the EC define and provide further de tails regarding "compe nsating products"? 
 Answer
 
This is the EC term for "processed products". 
 
Question 3 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; (ix) 
Government Procurement: pa ragraph 95, page 65:  
Thank you for your answer to question 79.  
Understanding that the policy is voluntary and that is h as to be carried out in full respect of the Public 
Procurement Directives and the principles of equality , transparency and non-discrimination, can the 
EC explain what oversight it is providing to ensure  policies related to sustainable forest management 
are being carried out in full respect of the Directiv es and the principles of equality, transparency and 
non-discrimination? 
 
Answer  
The European Commission is aware that a number of Member States have taken initiatives to regulate 
the kind of timber that is purchased by their pub lic authorities. Such timber procurement policies go 
into varying extent of details and requirements de pending on the Member State in question. In order 
to try to harmonise such policies across the EU (which are anyway adopted on a voluntary basis) the 
European Commission has set up an ad-hoc working group on Sustainable Timber Procurement. The 
aim of this group is to examine which criteria are relevant and appropriate for inclusion in such 
procurement policies as well as the acceptable means of proof to show compliance therewith. 
 
Question 4 
Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; (ix) Government Procurement: paragraph 103, page 69: 
Thank you for your answer to question 90; however,  it appears the links provided are related to the 
publication of notices and not the challenge procedures.  
Could the EC please clarify if there are specific links  to the challenge procedures, and if so, please 
provide the correct links. 
 WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 462  
 
 Answer
 
The EC has given in its answer to question 89 th e links to the three websites which give the most 
comprehensive information on the EU procurement regime and the implementing measures taken by 
Member States. There is no specific website whic h would provide information only on challenges 
procedures in the EU. However, the SIMAP websit e includes a link to EU Member States national 
websites where information is pr ovided on challenges procedures. 
 Question 5 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Measure: (2) Measures Directly Affecting Imports; (ix) Government procurement: paragraph 106, page 70: 
Thank you for your response to question 96.  
Could the EC please identify the Member State and provide a timeline for when it will have transposed the EC procurement directives?  What steps is the EC taking to ensure this Me mber complies with its GPA commitments in the 
interim?  Answer
 
As to the first part of the question, the EC cannot disclose such information.   On the compliance issue, the EC does not need to take any specific  steps towards this particular 
Member State as it has fully and correctly implem ented the previous EU procurement directives 
which are GPA compliant. 
 Question 6 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (4) Measures Affecting Production and 
Trade; (iv) Intellectual property rights; (a) I ndustrial property; Trade marks: paragraph 168, 
page 86:  
Canada thanks the EC for its answer to question 97. In  its response, the EC states that previous use of 
a trade-mark is "immaterial" in regards of possible conflict/confusion over a registered GI. Could the EC elaborate on what would happen if the evidence shows that th e trade-mark was used 
before the registration of the GI, and is found to be "well-known" in the EC, as stipulated in Article 
6bis of the Paris Convention?  Answer
 
A GI would not be registered where, in the li ght of a trademark's re putation and renown and the 
length of time it has been used, registration of the GI would be liable to mislead the consumer as to 
the true identity of the product. 
 
Question 7 Part III. Trade Policies and Practices by Meas ure: (4) Measures Affecting Production and 
Trade; (iv) Intellectual property rights; (a) Indus trial property; Patents:  paragraph 180, page 
88: 
We thank the EC for its response to question 98. Although the EC has provided some useful 
information, it concludes that "whether or not an SPC can be granted, and its duration will depend on 
the date of this first marketing authorisation and the filing date of the patent application". 
Could the EC elaborated on this sentence, as it is not clear what they meant by this. Further, we would 
like to have more details about how it is decided wh ether or not an SPC will be granted, and how the 
timeframe is established.  Answer
 
Regulation No. 1768/92 provides that a holder of both a patent and an SPC should be able to enjoy an overall maximum of fifteen years of exclusivity from  the time the medicinal product first obtains an 
authorisation to be placed on the market of the Co mmunity. Article 13 of the Regulation sets out the  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 463 
 
 
 calculation of the duration of an SPC which is equal to the period that lapsed between the date on 
which the application for a basic patent was lodged and the date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community reduced by  a period of five years. Notwithstanding this, the 
duration of an SPC may not exceed five years from the date it takes effect." 
 
CANADA
 
 Question 97 
In the case that a previous use of a trademark is inmaterial, could the EC please elaborate if that 
trademark used before is found to be well-know n in the EU? (with reference to article 6) 
 
Answer:
 
As previously stated rights to a Community trade mark can only be obtained through registration. As 
the Community Trade Mark Regulation does not foresee the protection of not registered trade marks, 
in the legal meaning there is no notoriously well k nown trade mark "in the Community". Trade marks 
which are notoriously well known in  one Member State are protected  as national (domestic) marks in 
accordance with Art. 6bis of the Paris Convention though. 
 
Question 98 
Canada requires further clarification regarding the l ast sentence of our reply, in particular as regards 
the fact that granting an SPC depends on the date  of the filing date of the patent application. 
 
Answer  
Regulation No. 1768/92 provides that a holder of both a patent and an SPC should be able to enjoy an overall maximum of fifteen years of exclusivity from  the time the medicinal product first obtains an 
authorisation to be placed on the market of the Co mmunity. Article 13 of the Regulation sets out the 
calculation of the duration of an SPC which is equal to the period that lapsed between the date on 
which the application for a basic patent was lodged and the date of the first authorisation to place the product on the market in the Community reduced by  a period of five years. Notwithstanding this, the 
duration of an SPC may not exceed five years from the date it takes effect. 
 JAPAN
 
 
Question 1 
Regarding the EC’s answer for Japan’s Question 30  (1), Ccould the EC indicate the paragraph of 
Annex 2 of the Agreement of Agriculture which this support is classified into, and why?  
 Answer
 
Measures could be classified under several par agraphs of Annex 2, depending on the local 
development strategy built on one or more of th e core policy objectives of Rural Development.  
 Question 2 
Regarding the EC’s answer for Japan’s Question 30 (2), please provide information on the amount of 
the support. 
 
Answer
 
In 2006, EUR 350 million was paid by the Commun ities and a similar amount was paid through 
national funding. 
 
Question 3 Regarding the EC’s answer for Japan’s Question 43 (2) 
The answer from the EC to this question seems inc onsistent with the descripti on in paragraph 47, page 
110 of the Secretariat report that states "(coupled payments are) no longer linked to production but to WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 464  
 
 the cultivated area". This is because the cultivated  area would be changed every year and not fixed. 
Could the EC provide further explanation on this? 
 
Answer
 
The payments are based on fixed area and fixed yields  and are as such compliant with the Blue Box 
criteria. Blue Box payments are coupled payme nts and these coupled payments require area in 
production. 
 
UNITED STATES  
 
Question 4 
What is the purpose of extending the EC’s regulator y reach outside its borders?  Does the EC envision 
any form of consultation with other WTO members as it pursues this objective? 
 
Answer  
The EC does not attempt to regulate outside its borders, although goods and services to be supplied 
within those borders are naturally subject to the req uirements of EC legislation. In addition, the EU 
through its neighbourhood policy gives assistance to countries which chose to adopt elements of the Community acquis in order to strenthen economic  links. COM(2008) 874 of 16.12.2008 explains this 
in more detail. The EC notifies draft product legi slation through the WTO-TBT procedures, therefore 
any such requirements are made known to oth er WTO members before legislation is adopted.  
 
Question 8 
With respect to the EC’s EPAs with ACP countries,  please confirm that your response means that no 
significant agricultural or fisheries sectors are excluded from two-way liberalization.  
 
Answer
 
EC's EPAs with ACP countries are ambitious agreemen ts, which at the same time take fully on board 
developmental aspects, inter alia through asymmetrical liberalizati on commitments. As regards trade 
in goods, liberalization covers industrial, agricultu ral and fisheries products. The EC confirms that 
these agreements conform to the requirements laid  down in Article XXI V GATT 1994, regarding both 
'substantially all trade' and 'no exclusion of major sector' provisions.  
 
Question 9 
We note that the Panel and Appellate Body did no t find the EC’s administration of its customs law 
and its appeals procedure in particular to be "pe rfectly complying with WTO requirements."  In fact, 
the Panel and Appellate Body found that the EC was in breach of Article X:3(a) with respect to its 
administration of rules pertaining to the classificati on of LCD monitors.  More over, with respect to 
the administration of the EC’s customs laws in gene ral, the Appellate Body concluded that the Panel 
erroneously failed to reach the question of whether th e EC’s system as a whole is inconsistent with 
Article X:3(a).  An important element of that dis pute was the absence of appeal procedures with EC-
wide effect.  Could the EC confirm whether the re forms under the MCC will pr ovide that an appeal 
decision in one member State will have effect throughout the EC?  Answer
 
The EC should like to stress that its executive federalism and institu tional structure does not allocate 
or lay down in secondary legislation like the MCC the division of jurisdiction between, on the one 
hand, national Tribunals and Courts of the Member States and, on the other hand, the Court of First 
Instance of the European Communities and the Europe an Court of Justice. Such matters have nothing 
to do either with the Community Customs Code or the MCC, but instead depends on primary 
legislation, namely the EC Treaty.   WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 465 
 
 
 The use in Article X:3(b) of the GATT 1994 of the term "the agencies entrus ted with administrative 
enforcement" in the plural form suggests that reference is made to more than a single agency. 
However, it does not follow from the use of the plur al that first instance review decisions concerning 
administrative action taken by an agency must  necessarily be binding on all other agencies 
throughout a WTO Member's territory.  The use of the plural for "agencies" might also be a 
consequence of the reference to "tribunals" a nd "procedures" in the pl ural. The reference to 
"tribunals" and "procedures" in the plural suggest s that WTO Members are fr ee to establish several 
first instance review tribunals and procedures that ha ve differents substantive or geographic areas of 
competence. The above tenet has been clearly a cknowledged by the Appellate Body in its adopted 
Report in EC Selected Customs Matters.  
 
The EC would like to make clear that it has no intention at all of altering such allocation of jurisdiction in customs related matters, that the MCC has no effect on such matters and that there is 
no need for further answers concerning such specific issue. It is also regrettable that the USA tries to 
re-open a lost argue on Article X:3(b) during the EC TPR, this not being the appropriate forum to 
hear it.  
 Question 18 
Our understanding of your response is that products that comply with the standards of certain EC 
standards organizations are presumed to meet "essen tial requirements" under the EC "new" regulatory 
approach, while products complying with standards of non-EU organizations cannot benefit from such 
a presumption.  Is our understanding correct?   
 In addition, may a product that complies with "e ssential requirements" under the new approach but 
does so through compliance with a standard develope d by a non-EU organization be placed on the EU 
market?  In other words, if a non-EU organizati on develops a standard to meet an "essential 
requirement", is a product meeting th at standard permitted to be sold  in the EU, or must the product 
meet a standard developed by an EU organiza tion in order to be placed on the EU market? 
 
Answer
 
In reply to the first part of the question, the EC would like to confirm that only products conforming to 
a Harmonised European Standard ("harmonised standard") 
(a) developed by one of the European St andards Organisations CEN, CENELEC and 
ETSI; 
(b) under a request from the European Commission; and (c) the references of which have been publishe d in the Official Journal of the European 
Union can benefit from presumption of conf ormity with the essential requirements set 
out in the applicable EC harmonising legisl ation which are covered by that standard. 
 
With respect to the second part of the question, it should be recalled that recourse to harmonised 
standards to demonstrate compliance with the essen tial requirements is voluntary.  The voluntary 
nature of harmonised standards is intended to prev ent technical standards being an obstacle to the 
placing on the market of products incorporating innovative solutions. 
 
Even when all essential requirements that apply to a given product are covered by a harmonised 
standard, a manufacturer remains therefore free to apply alternative specifications. "Alternative 
specifications" may include standards de veloped by a non-EU organisation.  
 
Where a harmonised standard exist, it provides an indication of the state of the art at the time it was 
adopted. In other words, the harmonised standard indi cates the level of protection of the relevant 
public interest (e.g. safety of persons ) which can be expected of a given  type of product at that time. A 
manufacturer who chooses to apply other technical specifications must be able to demonstrate – 
through appropriate technical documentation - that his alternative solution is in conformity with the WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 466  
 
 essential requirements and provides a level of e.g. safety t hat is at least equivalent to that afforded by 
the application of the specifications of the relevant harmonised standard.  Question 19 
The EC states in its response that when a legislative proposal is "finalized" it is notified to WTO 
Members.  Could the EC clarify the point in the inte rnal process at which the proposal is finalized?  If 
this point is after approval of the technical regulation by EC Member States or other Community institutions, is there a mechanism under which comme nts offered by WTO Members can be taken into 
account, considering that the proposed regulation ma y already have been approved through a lengthy 
internal EC process?  Answer
 
The stage at which a proposal is  to be notified to the WTO depends  on the kind of procedure followed 
for the adoption of each Act. Notification takes pl ace at a stage at which the proposal is mature 
enough in order to allow interested parties to  fully evaluate its objective and consequences. 
Comments received from other Memb ers are transmitted to the relev ant instances according to the 
applicable legislative procedure in order to be taken  into account prior to final adoption of the Act.  
 Question 26 
The EC states in its response that proposed techni cal regulations are based on an extensive impact 
assessment evaluating the economic, social and e nvironmental consequences of available policy 
options, including their compatibility with the international trade obligations of the EC. 
 
- First, does analysis of economic consequences include an assessment of the  measure’s impact on trade from other WTO Members or take into account its 
 compatibility with regulatory regimes of those other WTO Members?  
- Second, are these assessments publicly ava ilable, and if so do they include an 
 evaluation of a measure’s compatibility with  international trade obligations, effect on 
 trade of other WTO Members and compatibility with other Members’ regulatory  regimes?  Can the Commission provide an illustrative example of such an assessment 
 in which trade with other WTO Member s and international obligations were 
 evaluated?   
 Answer
 
In reply to the first part of the question, the EC  would like to inform the United States that every 
impact assessment (IA) of proposed technical regul ations should establish whether the available 
policy options have an impact on trade relations with third countries. In this context, the following 
aspects should, inter alia, be considered: 
 
• Analysis of similar regulations which already  exist in the EU's main trading partners; 
 
• How the proposed policy options are likely to affect trade or investment flows 
between the EU and third countries: the IA should analyse how different groups (foreign and domestic businesses and consumers)  are affected, and help to identify 
options which do not create unnecessary barriers; 
 
• Impacts on developing countries: initiatives that may affect developing countries 
should be analysed for their coherence w ith the objectives of the EU development 
policy. This includes an analysis of conse quences (or spill-overs) in the longer run in 
areas such as economic, environmen tal, social or security policy. 
  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 467 
 
 
 For additional information, please refer to the current version of the European Commission Impact 
Assessment Guidelines, as last updated on 15 January 2009, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/gover nance/impact/docs_en.htm. 
 These Guidelines integrate the reco mmendations made in the joint paper produced by the European 
Commission and the US Office of Management and Budget in May 2008 in the framework of the 
Transatlantic Economic Council to compare the respective systems for assessing impacts on 
international trade and investment in the EU and the US, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/international _relations/docs/tec/tec_analysis_en.pdf. 
 
With respect to the second part of the question, a ll impact assessments carried out to date are publicly 
available at http://ec.europa.eu/ governance/impact/practice_en.htm.  
 As an illustrative example of an assessment in whic h trade with other WTO Members was extensively 
evaluated, reference is made to the European Co mmission proposal for a Regulation of the European 
Parliament and of the Council concerning trade in seal products, available at 
http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impac t/docs/ia_2008/sec _2008_2290_2_en.pdf. 
 Question 31 
Under the rubric of sanitary and phytosanitary me asures, and in the context of the Commission’s 
approach to "food safety," the Comm ission includes a discussion of such issues as animal welfare and 
consumer information.  Could the Commission e xplain the relevance of animal welfare and non-
health based consumer information to sanitary an d phystosanitary measures?  Do the animal welfare 
and consumer information issues extend beyond the issue of food safety, or are they only relevant 
under EC legislation to the extent that they affect food safety?   
 
Answer
 
In recent years, European consumers have expressed  their concerns that animals used in food 
production should be well treated as well as the wish  to be properly informed on the way the food they 
buy is produced. In response, the body of EU legisl ation on animal welfare has increased steadily as 
well as the initiatives to promote consumers inform ation on animal welfare issues both from the 
public and the private sides. As a consequence ani mal welfare has evolved considerably as an issue of 
scientific investigation, policy fo rmulation and public concern.  
  The Protocol on Protection and Welfare of Animals annexed to the European 
Community (EC) Treaty in 1999 (the Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European 
Union) represents a milestone for the developmen t of the Community’s animal welfare policy, 
highlighting the ethical dimension of this policy. This Protocol spells out the obligation to 
pay full regard to the welfare of animals as sentient beings when formulating and 
implementing the EC’s policies.    As regard the integration of animal welfare into Community food safety legislation, 
the link between animal welfare and food safety was highlighted in 1999 in the Community 
White Paper on Food Safety , integrating animal welfare into the food chain policy of the EU, 
and later on such integrated approach to ani mal health, welfare and food safety controls 
throughout the food chain was ensured by Regulation (EC) 882/2004 .  
  According to one of the main areas of action of the Community Action Plan on the 
Protection and Welfare of Animals 2006-2010, the European Commission is working with 
international trading partners to rai se awareness on animal welfare and common 
understanding on internationally recognised anima l welfare standards, including in our trade 
negotiations and agreements. In this respect the EC supports the multilateral process and 
shares the main objective of the OIE to impr ove animal health worldwide as well as the WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 468  
 
 principle that animal welfare is a particular dime nsion of it. From a trade policy perspective, 
the Commission views are that animal welfa re has a positive effect on animal health and 
production, which in turn means impro ved trading conditions and could provide added value 
to trade and shall not be considered as a mean to create barriers to trade. 
 
Question 37 Language may have been inadve rtently dropped from the third paragraph of the Commission’s 
response.  Could the Commission confirm that the cons umer’s right to choose, for instance, in the area 
of biotechnology, is a fundamental part of the Commission’s approach to food legislation?   
 
Answer
 
The protection of consumers' rights is an essential element of Community acquis.   According to Article 153 of the Treaty establishi ng the European Community, the Community has to 
contribute to protect not only the health, safety and economic interests of consumers but also it has to 
promote, among others, their right of informatio n. Following the same Article, the consumers 
protection requirements have to be taken into a ccount in defining and implementing other Community 
policies and activities.   In the food area, this has been translated in sec ondary law by the fundamental right of consumers to 
make informed choices in relation to food they cons ume. (See Article 8 of Regulation (EC) 178/2002 
of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the general principles and requirements 
of food law).  By application of these principl es, the legislation on GMOs, like other Community food-related 
legislation, recognises that the labelling of products  is an essential element to enable the consumers 
to make an informed choice and to facilitate fa irness of transaction between seller and purchaser.  
 Question 39 
The United States would again ask whether the EC plans to notify the changes in its procurement 
measures that are described in paragraph 96. 
 
Answer
 
As explained in the answer given previously by the EC, the European Commission is currently 
reviewing the quality and correctness of the implem enting measures communicated by those Member 
States who where late in transposing the new directives. Also, one Member State has not yet transposed the EU procurement directives. The notifi cation of these relevant measures is linked to the 
completion of the transposition by all Member States and by the correct implementation.  
 Question 41 
The United States is not seeking a notification of th e new entities that the EC has included in its 
revised offer.  Rather, the United States is reques ting a notification of any changes that have occurred 
with respect to the entities that are currently listed in the EC’s Annex 1.  Are all of the entities that are 
listed in the EC’s Annex 1 conducting their procurem ents in accordance with th e GPA?  Have any of 
the entities listed in Annex 1 been dissolved, replaced, or otherwise modified?  Is the EC planning to 
notify the changes to its current list of Annex 1 entities? 
 
Answer
 
The scope of the EC's commitments under the GPA remains unchanged. The EC maintains the notion 
of so-called "constant coverage" towards its  GPA partners in line with its commitments. 
 In particular, all the entities listed under the EC's Annex 1 conduct their procurement in accordance 
with the GPA rules. This is ensured by the EC's internal procurement regime. Within the meaning of  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 469 
 
 
 EC law, EU central authorities apply the EC proc urement directives. These directives are compliant 
with the GPA rules. Moreover, a reference to the GPA obligations is explicitly listed in them. Should 
an EC procuring entity listed under th e EC's commitments in the GPA not  comply with the GPA rules, 
this would violate the EC's internal legal provisions.  
Question 47 The EC indicates in the answer to question 47 that the relevant provision in Regulation No. 753/2002 
refers to the use of a trademark, but neither to the registration nor the invalidation of a trademark.  We 
note that Article 15 of EC Regulation No. 40/94, th e EC Trademark Regulation, provides for grounds 
of revocation of a trademark registration on the basis of 5 years non-use of the mark in the territory of 
the Community.  Thus, this prohibition on use cont ained in Regulation No. 753/2002 appears to lead 
to the revocation of the registration and the excl usive right to use the mark in the Community 
territory.  This provision is similar to many EC Member state trademark laws as well.  With this in mind, the United States remains very  interested to know how the EC can justify the  
prohibitions on use of trademarks, which appear to lead to the revocation/invalidation of such marks 
on the basis of Regulation No. 753/2002.  We find it curious that while certain trademarks may not meet the definitions for the traditional terms set forth in Regulation No. 753/2002, these marks have 
been used on the EC market for many years and we re registered by trademark offices charged with 
registering marks that are not deceptive to the c onsumer.  Moreover, we are interested in knowing 
how the EC determined that consumers are and have  been misled by these marks.  Can the EC share 
with the United States the research or consumer surv eys, which found that the EC consumer is misled 
by the use of CLOS, CHATEAU, or SUR LIE on US wines in the EC market? 
 
Answer
 
Article 15 of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 deals with the non-use of a registered trademark which can be 
revoked under certain conditions. Th erefore the purpose of Article 15 differs from Articles 7(1) and 
51 of the aforementioned regulation, which deals with the validity and the possible refusal or 
cancellation of a trademark if it is not valid. As me ntioned in our previous reply, Regulation (EC) No 
753/2002 merely says that a registered TM containi ng a traditional term shall be used for wines 
entitled to bear such traditional terms. Indeed, th e trademarks shall not be used in a deceptive way. 
The U.S. mixes different legal aspects: cancellation and non-use provisions. 
 
Invalidation of TMs is carried out either by TM offices or by jurisdictions. It is up to these bodies to 
assess the validity of a TM.  Question 48  
The United States appreciates the EC noting the ex act language in the Cambozola case which gives 
rise to the U.S. concerns as to the enormous breadth  of the "evocation" standard:  "It is possible for a 
protected designation to be evoked…where no Commun ity protection extends to the parts of that 
designation which are echoed in the term or terms at i ssue."  We suggest that even the use of a generic 
or other unprotected term can "evoke" a protected GI  and therefore, use of the generic term can be 
considered infringement, and in some cases, can be subject to criminal penalties.  We understand that 
Article 3(1) of EC Regulation No. 510/2006 appear s to prevent generic terms from being registered 
and that Article 13 appears to preserve some scope to the use of generic terms.  How these provisions 
can operate effectively, however, is unclear. Can or does the Commission establish, at the time of GI registration or at any other time, that the use of sp ecific generic terms potentially at risk will not be 
blocked by the owner of a protected geographical i ndication (PGI) or a protected designation of origin 
(PDO)?  If not, what assurances do the users of the ge neric term have against encroachment against 
the generic term?  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
Page 470  
 
 Question 
Can or does the Commission establish, at the time of GI registration or at any other time, that the use 
of specific generic terms potentially at risk w ill not be blocked by the owner of a protected 
geographical indication (PGI) or a protected designation of origin (PDO)?    Answer
 
We note that in most cases, generic terms en shrined in a multi-termed geographical indication 
correspond to terms used in the common language to  designate a type of product (for instance, 
"lamb" within the registered name "Shetland Lamb") and are not debated.  
Question If not, what assurances do the users of the generic te rm have against encroachment against the generic 
term?  
Answer
 
Provided a term, whether or not gen eric, is not used in a way that contravenes the terms of Article 13, 
in that for example its use does not  evoke the registered name (Article 13(1) point (a)) nor is it used in 
any other way liable to mislead the consumer as to the true origin of the product (point (d)), then the 
protection in respect of the geographical indi cation will not impede use of that term. 
 ANSWER TO QUESTIONS PUT ORALLY AT THE TPR MEETING: 
 
Question contained in US statement made during the TPR meeting in Geneva, 6 April 2009:  
 
In the area of technical barriers to trade, the EC is attempting to transform an essentially EC regional 
standard on olive oil into a Codex standard. Althoug h the EC has not been explicit about the reasons 
behind its position on linolenic acid, we are concerne d that the effects of this position would be to 
unjustly preclude extra virgin oil produced outside  the EC from bearing the extra virgin label. 
 
EC reply
 
It is inappropriate to assert that "the EC is  attempting to transform an essentially EC regional 
standard on olive oil into a Codex standard", as a ll the members of the International Olive Council 
(IOC) and other olive oil producing countries repre senting 98% of the world olive oil production 
support the standard proposed by the IOC and th e conclusions of a survey presented by this 
international organisation. The EU submitted to  the CCFO a very detailed argumentation on the 
linolenic level issue. For the Community and the IOC countries the preservation of a minimum level 
of undetectable adulteration is a priority. The IO C is undertaking new work on olive oil parameters 
and has invited producing countries worldwide to par ticipate. We hope that all olive oil producing 
countries would participate and in particular those claiming having problems. We hope that the US will continue  to engage constructively in th e CODEX discussion, which is the 
appropriate forum for these very technical matters. 
 
Question contained in US statement made during the TPR meeting in Geneva, 6 April 2009:  
 The US has concerns regarding EC measures that sev erely restrict the ability of non-EC wine to use 
common or descriptive and commercially valuable terms, on the grounds that those terms are 
traditional to European wines. This is particularly  disturbing when some of these terms do not have a 
common definition across all MS, we are aware of no effort to monitor or limit the use of these terms 
within the EC, and these terms have been used in the EC market on US wines for many years with no 
apparent problem.  
 
EC reply
 
The EC policy of traditional terms for wine is already open to third countries.  WT/TPR/M/214/Add.1 
 Page 471 
 
 
 The EC has just notified (on 1 April) under TBT a draft Commission Regulation "laying down certain 
detailed rules for the implementation of Council Re gulation (EC) No 479/2008 as regards protected 
designations of origin and geogr aphical indications, traditional t erms, labelling and presentation of 
certain wine products". Third countries are invite d to comment within a period of 60 days. 
 
MEXICO  
 
Question contained in Mexico statement during the TPR meeting in Geneva, 6 April 2009:  
 
En cuanto al TEQUILA, la Comunidad Europea sigue importando y comercializando bebidas que se 
hacen pasar por tequila, mismas que no cumplen con la legislación Mexicana para beneficiarse con 
ese nombre. México sigue insistiendo en la necesi dad de exigir en las aduanas comunitarias el 
certificado de autenticidad del C onsejo Regulador del Tequila para  así reducir los casos de fraude, 
adulteración y falsificación del tequila. México espera seguir contando con la colaboración de la 
Comunidad Europea para proteger el uso de la denominación de origen del tequila. 
 
EC reply  
Tequila is a protected GI in the EU and strict  control borders are applied to prevent the entry of 
products of other origins branded as tequila. The Member States authorities have intervened when 
products illegitimately named as tequila have been  found in the EU market and the products have 
been put out of commerce. The authorities are re ady to act again, in case evidence is found of 
continuation of these practices.  
__________