WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG170/3 
24 March 2006 
 
 (06-1335) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements Original:   English 
  
 
ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 
 
Questions and Replies
 
  
 The following communication, dated 21 March 2006, is being circulated at the request of the 
Delegation of the European Communities.   This document reproduces the questions addressed  to the Parties and the responses submitted. 
The questions and replies set out below are or ganized in accordance with document WT/REG170/2. 
  
_______________ 
  
I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE AGREEMENT 
4. Trade data 
 
1. We noted that the EC’s own public statistica l data used for its internal enlargement 
exercise seems to indicate a higher level of 10-15 trade in some cases than is apparent from the draft schedules. 
 The EC will notify the appropriate informati on to the WTO, as required under the relevant 
WTO agreements with a view to addressing the matter in the appropriate committees.   
 
 
II. TRADE PROVISIONS  1. Import restrictions 
  1.3 Common External Tariff  
 
2. Are there any sectors of the economies of the newly-admitted EU member states that 
have been excluded from the Enlargement?   
 ° If so, please list them; and  
 
 ° a schedule for their liberalization, if any.  
 
 Reference is made to the EC’s submission pursuant to Article XXIV:5 section: 1.3 Common 
External Tariff.  
 
3. Have all tariffs, TRQs, and customs and border fees been eliminated on all goods traded 
within the Community?  If not, please provide a list of goods to which any such measures still 
apply, the scheduled elimination of liberalization  (if any), and the value of trade affected.  WT/REG170/3 
Page 2  
 
   The ten new Member States took over in full the “acquis communautaire” as of 1 May 2004. Hence 
the acquis of the Customs Union applies.   
4. The United States is concerned that following  enlargement, market  access under tariff 
rate quotas in the new Member States will be reduced.  Does the EC intend to uphold the Uruguay 
Round commitments that the EC and the new Memb er States have towards other WTO Members in 
the area of quotas to avoid raising barriers to tr ade of other WTO Members?  If so, how?   
 The EC has initiated the proper examination and ne gotiation provided for by Article XXIV.6 of   
GATT. The consolidated quotas are negotiated and ag reed with the WTO Members holding rights, such 
rights being established according to the rules laid down in Article XXVIII of GATT and other relevant 
WTO rules. The approach agreed fully ensures that th e quota-volumes of third country exports are transferred 
to the tariff regime of the EC, hence ensuring the c ontinuance of trade as it was prior to enlargement. 
Agreement on levels of compensatory adjustment has been reached with the US and most other trading 
partners under Article XXIV.6.  5. Could the EC detail what transitional measures or exceptions exist in relation to the EU 
Customs Union.  
 Reference is made to the EC’s submission pursuant to Article XXIV:5 section: 1.3 Common 
External Tariff.  
 
4. Standards  
 4.2 Sanitary and phytosanitary measures 
 
6. Have any transitional measures been take n with regard to the implementation of 
Community veterinary and phytosanitary measures,  such as those envisioned under Article 42?  
 As regards the implementation of Community veterinary measures and transitional measures 
pursuant to Article 42 of the Act of Accession, the EC at tached (Annex 1) the list of legal acts that have been 
adopted. They are all targeted and limited in scope.  
7. As a result of enlargement, the Community’s SPS provisions have been extended to the 
10 new Member States.  Some of these directiv es and regulations are highly restrictive and 
effectively block U.S. exports of poultry, beef, corn, and soya.  The United States estimates losses 
of 63.3 million Euros in terms of annual trade to the new Member States as a result of the adoption of such measures.  
 ° How does the EU justify the extension of these “other regulations of commerce” 
  that are “more restrictive than [those]  prior to the formation of such union”? 
 
The question by the US seems to imply that new Me mbers to an existing RTA, or parties to a new 
RTA, would have to waive their current rights under the WTO to adopt WTO-compliant measures in the area 
of SPS. The EC does certainly not sh are such a “creative” interpretation of the rules, neither under GATT 
Article XXIV nor the SPS Agreement. Any SPS provisions adopted by the 10 new Member States of the EU, 
following enlargement, were made in the respect of the provisions of the SPS Agreement and international 
setting standards organisations. SPS rules extended to theses 10 new Members of the EU are scientifically 
based in order to protect consumer, animal and plant h ealth within the EU territory. In case other Members of 
the WTO consider that any SPS rules adopted by th e 10 new Members States of the EU were not in 
accordance with the provisions of the SPS Agreement, or  with provisions of inte rnational setting standard 
organisations (OIE, CODEX or IPPC), they should rai se their concerns in the appropriate WTO Committee. 
  WT/REG170/3 
 Page 3 
 
 
   ° What has been the trend of new Member States imports of non-EU agriculture 
commodities since the adoption of such measures?  Please provide data related to 
new Member State imports of non-EU agriculture commodities.  
 
 The EC does not have such data at hand, and ev en if it had, one would have to note that the 
simple external causality on the basis of which this  question is raised would seem to utterly disregard 
all other reasons for changes in trade flows. The EC  is certain that the examination provided for by 
article XXIV:5 will adequately show that the balance of concessions is significantly in the favour of 
WTO Members with the extension of the tariff regime of the EC-15 to the ten new Member States, as well as the compensatory adjustment provided  in the framework of Article XXIV:6.  
 
5. Safeguards 
 8. Article 37 appears to create a transitional safeguard.    
 ° Could the Community please define the fo llowing terms, as used in Article 37.1: 
 
 “difficulties which are serious and liable to persist;” 
  “serious deterioration in the economic situation;” and 
   “given area” 
 
 ° What “protective measures” are envisi oned?  Against whom/what are they  
  taken? 
 
 ° Is there a requirement that the “serious deterioration” be caused by “imports” 
from another EU Member State?   
 
 The EC has in its submission pursuant to Artic le XXIV:5 provided all information available 
on this matter. The EC can however seek to further explain as follows.   In accordance with Article 37(3) of the Act of Accession they may involve derogations from 
the rules of the EC Treaty and from the Act of Acce ssion whose scope and dura tion is limited to what 
is strictly necessary to rectify the situation and adju st the sector concerned. Priority shall be given to 
measures which will disturb the functioning of the internal market the least.    Measures must not entail frontier controls. Pr otective measures must be authorised by the 
European Commission, and the Commission will ensure the respect of the above principles. Protective 
measures would be implemented by the responsible au thorities on the basis of a decision taken by the 
European Commission. Before taking any measur e, the Commission will consult all Member States, 
and in particular it will hear the views and positions of the Member States directly affected by the 
potential safeguard measure.   
 There are as yet no practical examples of safeguard measures invoked under Article 37 of the 
Act of Accession.  
9. Article 38 appears to provide a mechanism for enforcing adherence to the Accession 
Treaty.   
° Could the EU please explain what is envi sioned by the phrase: “serious breach in 
the functioning of”? 
 WT/REG170/3 
Page 4  
 
  ° Have any measures been taken to date under this provision?  
 
 Upon motivated request of a Member State or  on its own initiative the European Commission 
may take appropriate measures in case of failure to implement commitments causing a serious breach of functioning of the internal market. Up to now th ere have been no measures requested or taken. The 
clause expires on 1.5.2007.  
 
6. Antidumping and countervailing  measures 
 
10. What justifications can the EU offer re garding the automatic extension of the 
anti-dumping measures to new Member States whic h have led to a more restrictive incidence of 
duties and regulations of commerce? 
 Since the enlargement of 1 May 2004, the 25 Member States of the EU constitute one single 
market with a Common Commercial Policy which includes the uniform EU-wide application of 
trade policy instruments. As a r esult, like with all the other asp ects of the EU Common Commercial 
Policy, as of 1 May 2004, the current EU trade de fence law and measures beca me applicable in the 
ten new Member States, while all measures previous ly applied by those new Member States against 
third countries and against each other disappeared.  
Enlargement as such did not trigger automatic  re-examinations of all existing EU trade 
defence measures. This is because enlargement does not necessarily change the basic economic 
parameters of the existing measures. Indeed, e nlargement is only one of the many circumstances 
which may change during the life-time of anti-dum ping measures. Other changes, which can have 
an equally important economic impact, such as the appearance of new producers or the disappearance of existing producers, would also not automatically lead to a review. A review would 
legally only be necessary if the changed circumstan ce affects the level of the measures in force or 
puts into question the existence of those measures.  Such effect would in view of the economic 
activity at the new member States not necessarily exist.  This is illustrated in particular by the fact 
that the production and trade flows of goods in the acceding countries are less than 10% of those of 
the 15 old Member States of the EU. Therefore, the economic parameters of the investigations carried out on the basis of the enlarged EU w ould in most cases be the same as those of the 
investigations previously carried out on the basis of 15 Member States. 
 However, wherever enlargement substantially  changes the circumstances regarding anti-
dumping measures (e.g. the injury parameters), revi ews of such measures ar e possible in accordance 
with Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC)  No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community
1 (the ‘basic 
Regulation’) and Article 11.2 of the WTO Anti-dumpi ng Agreement. Since the date of enlargement, 
i.e. as of 1 May 2004, interested parties have th erefore the possibility to lodge review requests of 
trade defence measures for which enlargement signi ficantly changes dumping, subsidy, injury or 
other important parameters of the measures. Review s are initiated, provided that the alleged changes 
are substantiated by sufficient prima facie evidence.  It should be repeated, however, that the mere 
fact of enlargement is not regarded as a signifi cant change of circumstances for the purpose of 
initiation of a review. Depending on the results of the review investigations the measures concerned 
are maintained, modified or abolished. In brief,  the EU enlargement can be appropriately addressed 
under Article 11.2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
 
 Finally, it should also be recalled that the a bove approach has been made fully transparent 
by the EU. Long before the enlargement took pl ace, the EU conducted a series of information 
                                                      
1OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 
13.3.2004, p. 12).  WT/REG170/3 
 Page 5 
 
 
  activities, aimed at explaining to interested par ties the envisaged approach. Furthermore, the EU 
published in the Official Journal of the European  Union a Notice regarding the application of anti-
dumping and anti-subsidy measures in force in the Community following enlargement and the 
possibility of review.2 A website on this issue has also been launched. In that way all parties were 
fully informed and could prepare themselves, e.g. fo r a review request in case they considered that 
this would be appropriate. 
 
11. With respect to the automatic extension of  anti-dumping measures, please provide 
detailed explanation as to how the automatic extension of anti-dumping measures and the 
“enlargement-related reviews” are consistent with the provisions of GATT Article VI para. 6(a) 
and Article XXIV para. 4 and 5(a).   
 
 Since the enlargement of 1 May 2004, the 25 Member States of the EU constitute one single 
market with a Common Commercial Policy which includes the uniform EU-wide application of 
trade policy instruments. As a r esult, like with all the other asp ects of the EU Common Commercial 
Policy, as of 1 May 2004, the current EU trade de fence law and measures became applicable in the 
ten new Member States, while all measures previously applied by those new Member States against third countries and against each other disappeared.   
Enlargement as such did not trigger automatic  re-examinations of all existing EU trade 
defence measures. This is because enlargemen t does not necessarily change the basic economic 
parameters of the existing measures. Indeed, e nlargement is only one of the many circumstances 
which may change during the life-time of anti-dum ping measures. Other changes, which can have 
an equally important economic impact, such as the appearance of new producers or the 
disappearance of existing producers, would also not automatically lead to a review. A review would 
legally only be necessary if the changed circumstan ce affects the level of the measures in force or 
puts into question the existence of those measures.  Such effect would in view of the economic 
activity at the new member States not necessarily exist.   This is illustrated in particular by the fact 
that the production and trade flows of goods in the acceding countries are less than 10% of those of 
the 15 old Member States of the EU. Therefore, the economic parameters of the investigations 
carried out on the basis of the enlarged EU w ould in most cases be the same as those of the 
investigations previously carried out on the basis of 15 Member States. 
 
However, wherever enlargement substantially  changes the circumstances regarding anti-
dumping measures (e.g. the injury parameters), revi ews of such measures ar e possible in accordance 
with Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC)  No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community
3 (the ‘basic 
Regulation’) and Article 11.2 of the WTO Anti-dumpi ng Agreement. Since the date of enlargement, 
i.e. as of 1 May 2004, interested parties have th erefore the possibility to lodge review requests of 
trade defence measures for which enlargement signi ficantly changes dumping, subsidy, injury or 
other important parameters of the measures. Review s are initiated, provided that the alleged changes 
are substantiated by sufficient prima facie evidence.  It should be repeated, however, that the mere 
fact of enlargement is not regarded as a signifi cant change of circumstances for the purpose of 
initiation of a review. Depending on the results of the review investigations the measures concerned 
are maintained, modified or abolished. In brief,  the EU enlargement can be appropriately addressed 
under Article 11.2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
 
 Finally, it should also be recalled that the a bove approach has been made fully transparent 
by the EU. Long before the enlargement took pl ace, the EU conducted a series of information 
                                                      
2 OJ C 231, 16.9.2004, p. 2 and C 91, 15.4.2004, p. 2. 
3OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 
13.3.2004, p. 12). WT/REG170/3 
Page 6  
 
  activities, aimed at explaining to interested par ties the envisaged approach. Furthermore, the EU 
published in the Official Journal of the European  Union a Notice regarding the application of anti-
dumping and anti-subsidy measures in force in the Community following enlargement and the 
possibility of review.
4 A website on this issue has also been launched. In that way all parties were 
fully informed and could prepare themselves, e.g. fo r a review request in case they considered that 
this would be appropriate. 
  In conclusion, the approach described above is  fully in line with EC’s obligations arising 
under the WTO Agreements, including the provisions cited by Hong Kong, China.  12. Could the EC explain how existing Anti-dumpi ng duties to third parties were handled in 
the Enlargement.  
 Since the enlargement of 1 May 2004, the 25 Member States of the EU constitute one single 
market with a Common Commercial Policy which includes the uniform EU-wide application of 
trade policy instruments. As a r esult, like with all the other asp ects of the EU Common Commercial 
Policy, as of 1 May 2004, the current EU trade de fence law and measures beca me applicable in the 
ten new Member States, while all measures previous ly applied by those new Member States against 
third countries and against each other disappeared.   
Enlargement as such did not trigger automatic  re-examinations of all existing EU trade 
defence measures. This is because enlargement does not necessarily change the basic economic 
parameters of the existing measures. Indeed, e nlargement is only one of the many circumstances 
which may change during the life-time of anti-dum ping measures. Other changes, which can have 
an equally important economic impact, such as the appearance of new producers or the disappearance of existing producers, would also not automatically lead to a review. A review would 
legally only be necessary if the changed circumstan ce affects the level of the measures in force or 
puts into question the existence of those measures.  Such effect would in view of the economic 
activity at the new member States not necessarily exist.  This is illustrated in particular by the fact 
that the production and trade flows of goods in the acceding countries are less than 10% of those of 
the 15 old Member States of the EU. Therefore, the economic parameters of the investigations carried out on the basis of the enlarged EU w ould in most cases be the same as those of the 
investigations previously carried out on the basis of 15 Member States. 
 However, wherever enlargement substantially  changes the circumstances regarding anti-
dumping measures (e.g. the injury parameters), revi ews of such measures ar e possible in accordance 
with Article 11(3) of Council Regulation (EC)  No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection 
against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Community
5 (the ‘basic 
Regulation’) and Article 11.2 of the WTO Anti-dumpi ng Agreement. Since the date of enlargement, 
i.e. as of 1 May 2004, interested parties have th erefore the possibility to lodge review requests of 
trade defence measures for which enlargement signi ficantly changes dumping, subsidy, injury or 
other important parameters of the measures. Review s are initiated, provided that the alleged changes 
are substantiated by sufficient prima facie evidence.  It should be repeated, however, that the mere 
fact of enlargement is not regarded as a signifi cant change of circumstances for the purpose of 
initiation of a review. Depending on the results of the review investigations the measures concerned 
are maintained, modified or abolished. In brief,  the EU enlargement can be appropriately addressed 
under Article 11.2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
 
                                                      
4OJ C 231, 16.9.2004, p. 2 and C 91, 15.4.2004, p. 2. 
5OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 
13.3.2004, p. 12).  WT/REG170/3 
 Page 7 
 
 
   Finally, it should also be recalled that the a bove approach has been made fully transparent 
by the EU. Long before the enlargement took pl ace, the EU conducted a series of information 
activities, aimed at explaining to interested par ties the envisaged approach. Furthermore, the EU 
published in the Official Journal of the European  Union a Notice regarding the application of anti-
dumping and anti-subsidy measures in force in the Community following enlargement and the 
possibility of review.6 A website on this issue has also been launched. In that way all parties were 
fully informed and could prepare themselves, e.g. fo r a review request in case they considered that 
this would be appropriate.  
8. Sector-specific provisions 
 
13. Please outline the types of nationally-funded and EU-funded transitional and permanent 
support systems for agriculture for the new Me mber States, including the funding levels. 
 The EC will notify the appropriate informati on to the WTO, as required under the relevant 
WTO agreements with a view to addressing the matter in the appropriate committees.   
 
14. Under Article 6.8 of the Act of Accession, the new Member States must accede to the 
bilateral agreements and arrang ements concerning steel and steel products to which the 
Community is a signatory. 
° Would the Community please describe the effect on third parties of the accession 
of the new Member States to the steel and steel products quantitative restrictions 
imposed by the Community?  
 
 The quantitative limits fixed in the bilatera l agreements between the EU and respectively 
Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan have been increased upon accession of the new Member States. The increase corresponded to the traditi onal trade between these countries and the new Member States. So, 
the effects, if any, were very limited. 
  
15. Can the Community advise the Committee of the overall effect on trade with other 
WTO Members of the application of the agricultural regime of the Community to the new Member States?  
 The EC has carried out significant reforms of  its Common Agricultural Policy, also in the 
context of the enlargement of the EU to 25 Member  States.  The overall effect of this should be 
viewed in terms of the restructuring of the ag riculture sector of the new Member States and the 
ensuing welfare effects of that. Enlargement al so provides additional market opportunities for 
exporters to the EU. Additional cost savings resu lt from having only one import regime as opposed to 
11 regimes previously. 
 
 As regards market access, enlargement has resulted in substantially increased access to the 
market of the new Member States, mainly because of the extension of the existing schedule of the 
EC-15 to the ten new Member Stat es. This access has however been even further enhanced through 
agreements in the context of Article XXIV:6 (GATT) under which the EC has undertaken to 
incorporate the quotas-regimes of the ten new Member  States in the schedule of the EC-15 and even 
further lower tariffs where WTO Members woul d incur imbalances of concessions through the 
extension of the schedule of the EC-15 to the te n new Member States. These negotiations have now 
been successfully completed in almost all cases.  
 
                                                      
6 OJ C 231, 16.9.2004, p. 2 and C 91, 15.4.2004, p. 2. WT/REG170/3 
Page 8  
 
   Finally, as for the issues of domestic support a nd export subsidies, th e 10 new Member States 
replaced their own agriculture regimes with the reformed Common Agricultural Policy as per 1 May 
2004. The decoupled single farm payment of th e reformed Common Agricultural Policy applies 
equally to the new Member States. The same go es for export refunds, where disciplines also apply 
equally for the 10 new Member States. Since 2005 a strengthened rural deve lopment policy with new 
measures to promote the environment, quality and an imal welfare and to help farmers to meet EU 
production, environmental, animal welfare and occupa tional safety standards is also being applied.  
 
16. Pursuant to Article 6.9, the Community will assume management of fisheries 
agreements “concluded by the new Member States”.   
° Has the Community assumed manageme nt of all fisheries agreements? 
 
° Could the Community please provide a list of fisheries agreements for which it 
has assumed responsibility? 
 
 The text of the Act of Accession is indeed clear and unambiguous. The EC has taken over the 
management of such agreements, including those between the US and the new Member States.  
 Schedules of export subsidy reduction commitments for agricultural products
 
 
17. In 2004, the schedule of the EU-15 and th e individual schedules of the ten newly 
acceding Members of the EU were withdrawn.  The EC advised that those schedules would be 
applied on a de facto  basis. 
 ° In respect of each of the products listed in the EU-15 schedule, can the EC 
 advise: 
  
(a)  What de facto  limits the EU is applying to the EU-25, in terms of 
budgetary outlay and quantity commitments in respect of the export subsidy reduction commitments?  
 (b) In terms of product coverage in the export subsidy reduction 
commitments, the extent to which the products covered in the EU-15 
schedule are also covered in each of the schedules of the ten new Member 
States? 
 
(c) Whether EC export refunds like th ose recently introduced on wheat are 
available to all of the EU-25 Member States, irrespective of the product 
coverage of the individual schedules of export subsidy reduction 
commitments of the ten new Member States?  
 
(d) If export refunds are generally availa ble to all of the newly acceding EU 
Member States, how does the EC give effect to the terms of the WTO protocols of accession of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania?  
 
 The EC will notify the appropriate informati on to the WTO, as required under the relevant 
WTO agreements with a view to addressing the matter in the appropriate committees.   
  Reference is however made to Committee repor t G/AG/R/40 page 22 more in particular the 
reply to a question from the USA concerning notification G/AG/N/SVK/44. 
   WT/REG170/3 
 Page 9 
 
 
  Slovak Republic     G/AG/N/SVK/44    Export Subsidy Commitments (Tables ES:1, ES:2 & ES:3) 
Points raised by other Members Response by Notifying Member 
United States - The notification includes export 
subsidies for 64,000 tonnes of malt. Given that the 
Slovak Republic joined the EU on 1 May 2004, and 
the fact that the EC does no t have an export subsidy 
commitment for malt in its Schedule, clarification 
sought that export subsidies for malt will no longer 
be utilized? Response by the EC: 
The EC-15 Schedule applies until the GATT Art. 
XXIV:6 negotiations have led to a revised EC-25 
Schedule. 
 
 ° We note that the EC needs to provide calculation sheets to verify how it has 
arrived at the figures and concorda nce of product descriptions and 
classifications.  The EC needs to tabl e its draft EU-25 agriculture schedules to 
the WTO.   
 
 The EC will notify the appropriate informati on to the WTO, as required under the relevant 
WTO agreements with a view to addressing the matter in the appropriate committees.   
 
 ° In the case of export subsidy schedules, th e EC needs to advise, for each product, 
the levels of trade between the individua l NMS as well as between the 10 and 15, 
and to advise the base years for calculation purposes. 
 
 The EC will notify the appropriate informati on to the WTO, as required under the relevant 
WTO agreements with a view to addressing the matter in the appropriate committees.   
  WT/REG170/3 
Page 10  
 
  ANNEX 1 
 
VETERINARY DOMAIN 
 
List of ACTS in force and adopted on the base of article 42 of Act of Accession
 
 
Commission Regulation 
2004R836EC  L127/48  29/04/2004  Commission Regulation (EC) No 836/2004 of 28 April 2004 laying 
down the transitional measures to be applied by Cyprus with regard to 
scrapie  
 
Commission Decision  
2003/630/EC L218/55 30/08/2003 Commission Decision of 29 August 2003 laying down the transitional 
measures to be applied by Hungary with regard to veterinary checks on products of animal origin from Romania 
2004/205/EC L65/23 3/3/2004 Commission Decision of 1 March 2004 laying down transitional 
measures for intra-Community trade in semen, ova and embryos of the 
bovine, porcine, ovine, caprine and equine species obtained in the Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, La tvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, 
Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia 
2004/253/EC L79/47 17/03/2004 Commission Decision of 10 March 2004 laying down the transitional 
measures to be applied by Hungary with regard to veterinary checks on live animals entering Hungary from Romania 
2004/280/EC L87/60 25/03/2004 Commission Decision of 19 March 2004 laying down transitional 
measures for the marketing of ce rtain products of animal origin 
obtained in the Czech Republic, Est onia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, 
Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia 
2004/430/EC L189/27 27/05/2004 Commission Decision 2004/430/EC of 29 April 2004 amending 
Decision 2003/828/EC on protection and surveillance zones in relation 
to bluetongue with regard to Cyprus and Malta (OJ L 154, 30.4.2004) 
2004/433/EC L189/40 27/05/2004 Commission Decision 2004/433/EC of 29 April 2004 laying down 
transitional measures for Latvia derogating from Council Directive 
1999/74/EC as regards the height of cages for laying hens (OJ L 154, 30.4.2004) 
2004/439/EC L189/76 27/05/2004 Commission Decision 2004/439/EC of 29 April 2004 adopting a 
transitional measure in favour of certain establishments in the meat 
sector in Malta (OJ L 154, 30.4.2004 
2004/459/EC L202/55 7/06/2004 Commission Decision 2004/459/EC of 29 April 2004 adopting a 
transitional measure in favour of ce rtain establishments in the milk 
sector in Hungary (OJ L 156, 30.4.2004) 
2004/464/EC L202/98 7/06/2004 Commission Decision 2004/464/EC of 29 April 2004 adopting 
transitional measures in favour of certain animal by-product establishments in Latvia (OJ L 156, 30.4.2004) 
2004/467/EC L212/3 12/06/2004 Commission Decision 2004/467/EC of 29 April 2004 laying down 
transitional measures to be applied by Cyprus and Estonia as regards 
on-site burning or burial of animal by- products pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council  WT/REG170/3 
 Page 11 
 
 
  2004/468/EC L212/5 12/06/2004 Commission Decision 2004/468/EC of 29 April 2004 laying down 
transitional measures to be applied by Estonia and Hungary as regards the material collected when treating waste water pursuant to 
Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the European Parliament and of the 
Council (OJ L 160, 30.4.2004) 
2004/471/EC L212/31 12/06/2004 Commission Decision 2004/471/EC of 29 April 2004 deleting certain 
milk establishments from the list of establishments allowed to process 
EU compliant and non-compliant milk during a transitional period in Poland (OJ L 160, 30.4.2004) 
2004/472/EC L212/34 12/06/2004 Commission Decision 2004/472/EC of 29 April 2004 deleting certain 
establishments from the list of esta blishments to which a transitional 
period has been granted in Latvia, Lithuania and Hungary (OJ L 160, 30.4.2004) 
2004/474/EC L212/44 12/06/2004 Commission Decision 2004/474/EC of 29 April 2004 deleting certain 
establishments from the list of esta blishments to which a transitional 
period has been granted in Poland (OJ L 160,  30.4.2004) 
2004/475/EC L212/47 12/06/2004 Commission 2004/475 /EC of 29 April 2004 adopting a transitional 
measure in favour of certain establishments in the meat and milk 
sectors in Slovenia (OJ L 160, 30.4.2004) 
2004/700/EC L318/21 19/10/2004 Decision of 13 October 2004 amending Decision 2004/280/EC laying 
down transitional  measures for the marketing of certain products of animal origin obtained in the Czech Republic,  Estonia, Cyprus, 
Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia and Slovakia 
2005/193/EC L63/23 10/03/2004 Commission Decision of 8 March 2005 amending Decision 
2004/475/EC adopting a transitional measure in favour of certain establishments in the meat and milk sectors in Slovenia 
2005/662/EC L245/21 21/09/2004 Commission Decision of 16 September 2005 amending Decision 
2004/459/EC adopting a transitional measure in favour of certain 
establishments in the milk sector in Hungary 
 
 
PHYTOSANITARY DOMAIN 
 
List of acts in force adopted on the base of article 42 of the Act of Accession  
 
OJ L097 1/04/2004p. 66 2004/297/EC: Commission Decision of 29 March 2004 authorising the 
Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania, Hungary, Pola nd and Slovakia to postpone the application of 
certain provisions of Council Directives 2002/53/EC and 2002/55/EC with regard to the marketing of 
seeds of certain varieties.  
OJ L123 27/04/2004 p. 7 2004R771EC: Commission Regulation (EC) No 771/2004 of 23 April 2004 
laying down transitional measures with regard to  continued use of plant protection products 
containing certain active substances following the accession of new Member States to the European 
Union. 
__________