WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TN/TF/W/2 
12 January 2005 
 (05-0118) 
Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation 
  
 
 
 
ARTICLE V OF GATT 1994 – SCOPE AND APPLICATION 
 
 
Note by the Secretariat  
  
 
 
 
  
 
   
I. INTRODUCTION 
1. The following paper updates an earlier Secretariat document on the same topic
1, as part of an 
effort to stay abreast of latest developments regarding the regulatory framework under consideration 
in the current Trade Facilitation negotiations.  It maintains the factual approach of its predecessor, 
limiting the examination to a legal analysis of th e Article's provisions with no judgement on possible 
room for clarification and improvement.   
2. Two related publications on the ot her relevant GATT provisions are also being revised in the 
course of the same exercise.   
3. With there not having been any changes to the Article, and still no jurisprudence being 
available on its interpretation, the update largely limits itself to modifications on the editing side, 
while at the same time offering some ad ditional information on a few points.   
II. STRUCTURE OF THE PAPER 
4. The paper largely keeps the sequencing of its prev ious version by first introducing the text of 
the Article and its negotiating history, before then  entering into a legal analysis of the provision's 
coverage and the basic obligations deriving therefrom.   In light of the continued absence of any panel 
findings in this area, the document still cannot offer the review of GATT/WTO jurisprudence 
contained in the other two Secretariat notes.  It w ill, however, briefly mention some of the incidences 
where violations of Article V have been claimed in th e past, to give a flavour of the kind of debates on 
this subject that emerged in practice.   
                                                      
1 G/C/W/408, 10 September 2002. This document has been pre pared under the Secretariat's 
own responsibility and without prejudice to the positions of 
Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO TN/TF/W/2 
Page 2  
 
 III. TEXT OF THE PROVISION  
1. Goods (including baggage), and also vessels and ot her means of transport, shall be deemed to 
be in transit across the te rritory of a contracting party
2 when the passage across such territory, with or 
without trans-shipment, warehousing, breaking bulk, or change in the mode of transport, is only a 
portion of a complete journey beginning and termina ting beyond the frontier of the contracting party 
across whose territory the traffic passes.  Traffic of this nature is termed in this article "traffic in 
transit".  2. There shall be freedom of transit through the te rritory of each contracting party, via the routes 
most convenient for international transit, for tra ffic in transit to or from  the territory of other 
contracting parties.  No distincti on shall be made which is based on the flag of vessels, the place of 
origin, departure, entry, exit or destination, or on any circumstances relating to the ownership of goods, 
of vessels or of other means of transport.  
 
3. Any contracting  party may require that traffic in trans it through its territory be entered at the 
proper custom house, but, except in cases of failure  to comply with applicable customs laws and 
regulations, such traffic coming from or going to the territory of other contracting parties shall not be 
subject to any unnecessary delays or restrictions and shall be exempt from cu stoms duties and from all 
transit duties or other charges impo sed in respect of transit, except charges for transportation or those 
commensurate with administra tive expenses entailed by transit or with the cost of services rendered. 
 
4. All charges and regulations imposed by contracti ng parties on traffic in transit to or from the 
territories of other contracting parties shall be reas onable, having regard to the conditions of the traffic. 
                                                     
 
2 See also the Explanatory Notes 2 (a) and (b) of GATT 1994.  
5. With respect to all charges, regulations and formalities in connec tion with transit, each 
contracting party shall accord to tra ffic in transit to or from the terr itory of any other contracting party 
treatment no less favourable than the treatment acco rded to traffic in transit to or from any third 
country.  
 
6. Each contracting party shall accord to products which have been in transit through the territory 
of any other contracting party treatment no less fa vourable than that which would have been accorded 
to such products had they been transported from their place of origin to their destination without going 
through the territory of such other c ontracting party.  Any contracting party shall,  however, be free to 
maintain its requirements of direct consignment existing on the date of th is Agreement, in respect of any 
goods in regard to which such direct consignment is  a requisite condition of eligibility for entry of the 
goods at preferential rates of duty or has relation to the contracting party's  prescribed method of 
valuation for duty purposes. 
 
7. The provisions of this Artic le shall not apply to the operation of aircraft in transit, but shall 
apply to air transit of goods (including baggage).  
 
*Interpretative note with respect to paragraph 5:   
 
 With regard to transportation charges, the principle laid down in paragraph 5 refers to like 
products being transported on the sa me route under like conditions. 
 
  
  TN/TF/W/2 
 Page 3 
 
 
 IV. NEGOTIATING HISTORY 
5. In negotiating Article V, the c ontracting parties cons idered a covenant known as the Barcelona 
Convention3, regulating the conditions a Member could apply to goods of another Member passing 
through its territory to a th ird destination.  Parts4 of Article V were effectively drawn from 
corresponding provisions of that Convention.   
6. An even higher degree of correspondence can be  found with respect to the draft Havana (or 
ITO) Charter5, whose Article 33 is a nearly verbatim c opy of GATT Article V.  The relationship 
between the two trea ties is of particular re levance as the GATT 1947 was (for the most part)6 originally 
only meant to be applied until the Ha vana Charter's entry into force.7  The Havana text was reviewed 
and partly modified at the 1948 Conference of th e same name, with many  GATT provisions being 
linked to its outcome, on the understanding that, once the ITO treaty would come into force, changes in 
the GATT would occur automatically.   
7. The fact that the Havana Charter never actually en tered into force, raises the question as to what 
extent the 1948 modifications and the ITO preparatory work are of  relevance when analyzing the 
GATT.  An answer is complicated by the fact that not all GATT Articles have been drawn from a 
particular ITO draft and that some  alterations of Havana provisions were not carried into the GATT, on 
the belief that such modifications would automa tically override differing GA TT provisions, once the 
Havana Charter entered into force.8  For many parties, the assume d short life-expectancy of GATT 
simply did not seem to merit the administrative effo rts of a change, particularly if the result was to 
become binding in the framework of the ITO Charter anyway.  Therefore, while the travaux 
préparatoires  for the ITO will be relevant for an analysis of the GATT in most cases, one will have to 
take a look at the respective situation for each and every Article, as there may be some exceptions.   
8. In the case of Article V, the original 1947 vers ion was never altered, whereas the corresponding 
article of the Havana Charter underwent several – pa rtly substantial – modifica tions.  These alterations 
were not brought into the GATT when Members nego tiated the 1948 protocols th at amended some of its 
provisions in order to ach ieve conformity with the Havana Charter.   
9. A comparison of the Havana Charter with the GATT therefore shows several differences.  The 
Havana Charter does not include the interpretative note contained in the GATT, but comprises three 
different interpretative notes to its Article 339, which were not carried into the General Agreement.  
Furthermore, the GATT lacks a provi sion inviting the organization to "… undertake studies, make 
recommendations and promote international agreem ent relating to the simplification of customs 
regulations concerning traffic in transit, the equita ble use of facilities required for such transit and 
other measures designed to promote the objectives of this Article.  Members shall cooperate with each 
                                                      
3 Convention and Statute on Freedom of Transit, Barcelona, 29 April 1921.  For some background on 
specific positions of  Members in the preparatory deliberations see U.N. Doc. E/PC/T/C.II/54/Rev.1.   
4 Paragraph 1 as well as the last sentence of paragraph 2 are based on the Barcelona Convention.   
5 The Havana-Charter for an International Trade Organization , designed to set up a forerunner of the 
WTO, never entered into force.   
6 Article XXIX of the GATT 1947:  "Part II of this Agreement shall be suspended on the day on which 
the Havana Charter enters into force".   
7 In expecting a replacement by the (far more compre hensive) Havana Charter in 1948, the contracting 
parties refrained from ratifying GATT and agreed on its temporary application instead.  (See Protocol of 
temporary application).   
8 This led various parties to withdraw proposals for amendments of the GATT as they considered them 
to be realized in the framew ork of the Havana treaty.   
9 Those notes were annexed to the Havana Charter.   TN/TF/W/2 
Page 4  
 
 other directly and through th e Organization to this end" .
10  This provision had been added to the Havana 
Charter at the Havana Conference "in the view of the great importance of this matter to many countries, 
particularly those c ountries which have no access to the sea" .11   
10. Despite those differences, the preparatory work on the Havana Charter is nevertheless of 
importance, as it appears from the process that the parties expected to see Article V interpreted in the 
light of the ensuing Havana  Conference deliberations.12   
V. COVERAGE 
A. GENERAL  
11. Article V addresses traffic in transit. It re gulates the conditions a Member may impose on goods 
transported through its territory by a nother party to a foreign destination.   The basic objective is to allow 
for freedom of transit through the territory of each Member for transports to or from the territory of 
other Members.  To achieve this freedom, Ar ticle V prescribes two main obligations:   
(i) not to hinder traffic in transit by imposi ng unnecessary delays or restrictions or by 
imposing unreasonable charges;  and 
(ii)  to accord Most-Favoured-Nation (MFN) trea tment to transiting goods of all Members.   
 
B. PARAGRAPH 1 
12. Paragraph 1 determin es traffic in transit.  It defines transit as " transit across the territory of a 
contracting party when the passage across such territory, with or w ithout trans-shipment, warehousing, 
breaking bulk, or change in the mode of transport, is only a portion of a complete journey beginning 
and terminating beyond the frontier of the contractin g party across whose terr itory the traffic passes" .  
Whether freedom of transit should also extend to goods consigned to a country in bond without a final 
destination, was the subject of discussion within th e Working Group of the Prep aratory Committee at its 
Geneva session.  The Group could not come to an agreement and decided not to pursue the matter any 
further.13  What was agreed in the subsequent Havana Conference was that "a movement between two 
points in the same country passing through another c ountry was clearly 'in transit' through the other 
country within the meaning of paragraph 1" .14   
13. Only goods (including baggage),  vessels and other means of tr ansport are considered to 
constitute traffic within the meaning of paragraph 1.  An initial proposal to include persons as well, was 
turned down by the Drafting Committee on the grounds that "transit of persons was considered not to be 
                                                      
10 Article 33 (6) of the Havana Charter.  It consequen tly also lacks the interpretative note related to this 
Article, which held that "If, as a result of negotiations in accordance with paragraph 6, a Member grants to a 
country which has no direct access to  the sea more ample facilities than t hose already provided for in other 
paragraphs to Article 33, such special facilities may be limited to the land-locked country concerned unless the 
Organization finds, on the complaint of any other Member, that the withholding of the special facilities from the complaining Member contravenes the most-favoured-nation provisions of this Charter."  
11 Havana Reports, U.N. Doc. ICITO/1/8, p. 3, para. 16. 
12 In the case of one new introduction – the addition of  an interpretative note for paragraph 2 of ITO 
Charter Article 33, it was expressly noted that GATT rules were to be seen in the light of the ensuing Havana 
Conference decisions (GATT, 2 BISD 44, 1952).  It a ppears from the overall preparatory deliberations that the 
parties wanted to apply the same principle for all parts of GATT Article V.   
13 U.N. Doc. E/PC/T/A/SR.20 p.  3;  U.N. Doc. E/PC/T/109. 
14 Havana Reports, U.N. Doc. ICITO/1/8, p. 71, para. 10.   TN/TF/W/2 
 Page 5 
 
 
 within the scope of the Charter, and since traffic of pers ons is subject to immigration laws and may 
properly be the concern of an inter national agency other than the Organization" .15   
14. On the other hand, the negotiating parties decide d to keep paragraph 1's reference to various 
means of transportation (" other means of transport"), despite an earlier agreement in the preparatory 
process to generally exclude transportation and shipment from both the GATT and the ITO Charter.16   
15. The preparatory work further suggests that the coverage of paragraph 1 extends to the assembly 
and disassembly of vehicles  and mobile machinery, if solely undert aken for convenience of transport.  
The contracting parties' in tention in this respect was expressly la id down in an interpretative note added 
to paragraph 1's corresponding Havana Char ter provision at the Havana Conference.17  T h i s  n o t e ,  
although not carried into the General Agreement in th e course of its 1948 revisi on, is nevertheless of 
relevance for GATT Article V, as the only reason for its non-inclusion was the parties' conviction that 
such insertion was not necessary, since the Havana Char ter text tallied with that of GATT's Article V:1, 
so that "the CONTRACTING PARTIES , who all signed the Final Act of th e conference of Havana, could not 
interpret these provisions in any way other than laid  down in the note Ad Article 33 of the Charter" .18    
16. Finally, the preparatory discussion s also suggest that Article V:1 should be read as to exclude 
grazing livestock.19   
C. PARAGRAPH 2 
17. Paragraph 2 prescribes fr eedom of transit.  It requires each Member to allow free transition 
through its territory for traffic in transit to or from th e territory of another Member .  Such transit shall be 
granted "via the routes most convenient for international transit".   This is an important restriction, as it 
means that the duty to gran t free transit does not extend to all routes.   
18. Parties are required not to make any distinction based on:   
a. the flag of vessels; 
b. the place of origin; 
c. departure; 
d. entry; 
e. exit; 
f. destination;  or  
g. any circumstances relating to the ownership of  goods, of vessels or of other means of 
transport. 
 19. A proposal to amend the corresponding Article of th e Havana Charter so as to allow for special 
agreements among neighboring count ries to regulate tran sit arising from mutu al trade, was not 
approved.  The Havana reports indicate that  the refusal was based on the grounds that "such agreements 
are clearly permissible under the te rms of the Article if they do not  prejudice the interests of other 
                                                     
 
15 New York Report, U.N. Doc. E/PC/T/34, p. 12.   
16 U.N. Doc. E/PC/T/A/PV.9, p. 25. 
17 "The assembly of vehicles and mobile machinery arriving in a knocked-down condition or the 
disassembly (or disassembly and subsequent reassembly) of bulky articles shall not be held to render the 
passage of such goods outside the scope of 'traffic in transit', provided that any such operation is undertaken solely for convenience of transport."   Havana Reports, U.N. Doc. ICITO/1/8, p. 71, para. 9. 
18 GATT/CP.2/22/Rev.1, adopted in September 1948, II/39, p. 44, para. 26. 
19 It is noted in the Minutes of the discussions of the Sub-Committee C of the Third Committee at the 
Havana Conference that "In the opinion of the Sub-Committee the case of grazing livestock ... was not 
considered as coming within the ambit of this Article."   TN/TF/W/2 
Page 6  
 
 Members in violation of the most-favoured-nation prov isions of the Charter, and if they do not limit 
freedom of transit for other Members" .
20 
20. Similarly, there was no approval of the suggestion to allow a contracting party to divert traffic 
in transit from the most convenient route, if a situati on such as famine called for the reservation of that 
route for other operations.  The report on the corres ponding Havana Charter Article by the Rapporteur of 
the Preparatory Committee held that "It would seem that Article 32(b) and (e) [identical with GATT 
Articles XX(b) and XXI(b)(iii)] afford ample protection fo r cases in which transit must be suspended or 
diverted for humanitarian or security reasons" .21   
D. PARAGRAPHS 3 – 5 
21. Paragraph 3 states the right of every Member to require traffic in  transit through its territory to 
enter at the proper custom house.  It further determines  that, except in cases of failure to comply with 
applicable customs laws and regulat ions, such traffic coming from or  passing through the territory of 
another Member " shall not be subject to any unnecessary delays or restrictions" .  The text also requires 
this traffic to be exempt from customs duties and from all transit duties or other charges imposed in 
respect of transit, except for "charges for transportation or thos e commensurate with administrative 
expenses entailed by transit or with  the cost of services rendered" .   
22. According to paragraph 4, all charges and regulat ions imposed by a Member on traffic in transit 
to or from the territories of another Member, shall be "reasonable, having regard to the conditions of the 
traffic" .  The report of the Technical Sub-Committee states that "…the word 'charges' includes charges 
for transportation by Government-owned railroad s or Government-owned modes of transportation" .22   
23. Paragraph 5 calls for most -favoured-nation treatment of traffi c in transit with respect to all 
charges, regulations and formalities in connection with tr ansit.  Interpretative issues arise with respect to 
the treatment of transportation charges.   An interpretative note to th is paragraph states that "With regard 
to transportation charges, the principle laid do wn in paragraph 5 refers to like products being 
transported on the same route under like conditions" .23  While this clearly implies that transportation 
charges are covered by this provisi on, a note to the corresponding Article in the Havana Charter holds 
that "The word 'charges' as used in the English text  of paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 shall not be deemed to 
include transportation charges" .24  This would mean that transportation charges would not have to be 
reasonable.  And one might question to what extent a Member is required to grant most-favoured-nation 
treatment with respect to such charges.   
24. Additional questions may arise from the fact that the Havana Reports evidence the parties' 
agreement "that transportation charges on traffic and tran sit did not come within the purview of 
Article 32 [Art. V of the GATT] , but  were subject to the provisions  of paragraph 2 of Article 18 
[Article III of the GATT] ...".25  Article III, which requires national treatment for internal taxation and 
regulation, addresses imported  products, raising the question of its applicability to goods in transit.   
                                                      
20 Havana Reports, U.N. Doc.ICITO/1/8, p. 72, para. 12. 
21 U.N. Doc. E/PC/T/C.II/W.11 p. 1. 
22 U.N. Doc. E/PC/T/C.II/54/Rev.1, p. 10. 
23 Annex I of the GATT, Ad Art. V, para. 5.  
24 Annex P of the Havana Charter, Ad Article 33. paras. 3, 4 and 5.  
25 Havana Reports, U.N. Doc.ICITO/1/8, p. 72.  TN/TF/W/2 
 Page 7 
 
 
 E. PARAGRAPH 6 
25. Paragraph 6 requires each party to treat produ cts, which have been in transit through the 
territory of another Member, no less favourably than products transported from th eir place of origin to 
their destination without going through the territory of  such other Member.  The text might be read to 
imply that a country V would have to treat goods tran sported through its territory from country X with a 
destination in country Z, after having already been ca rried through country Y, in the same manner that it 
would treat goods passing through its territory from X directly to Z, without having passed through Y.  
It may be open to discussion, however, whether para graph 6's equal treatment requirement only covers 
products passing through a party's te rritory after having already passed through another country, or 
whether it extends to products, which, having passed through a country, enter another party's territory to 
remain there as their final destination.  In other words, it may be debatable whether paragraph 6 applies 
only to cases where the goods are shipped from X through Y and V to Z, or whether it also covers goods 
coming from X through Y to V (without continuing to Z).   
26. The report of the Technical S ub-Committee held that while "paragraphs 2 – 5 of this Article 
cover the treatment to be given by a member country to products in transit through its territory between 
any other member countr y and a third country, (…) paragraph 6 covers the treatment to be given by a 
member country to products cleared from customs within its territory after transit through any other 
member country ".26 (emphasis added) 
27. An exception is made for certain dire ct consignment requirements existing " on the date of this 
Agreement" , to the extent that they are a condition for the eligibility for goods to enjoy preferential duty 
rates or relate to a party's pres cribed method of valuation for duty purposes.  The inclusion of this 
provision was considered necessary as  several countries required the dire ct shipment to their territory 
from the country of origin as a condition for bei ng eligible to enjoy certa in preferences.  The "date of the 
Agreement"  is 30 October 194727 for the original contracting parties28, and the date of the accession 
protocol (or the date of the declaration on provisional accession) for parties who acce ded at a later stage.   
F. PARAGRAPH 7 
 Paragraph 7 exempts the operation of aircraft in transit from the application of Article V.  The 
Preparatory Committee of the Havana Conference reports that "… it was generally felt that air traffic 
should be exempted as a matter which is being deal t with by the Internati onal Civil Air Organization" .29  
Air transit of goods (including baggage), on the other ha nd, does fall within the scope of Article V.   
 
Interpretative Note 
  Annex I contains an interpretative note to para graph 5. It specifies that, with respect to 
transportation charges, the MFN principle refers to  like products being transported on the same route 
under like conditions.   
                                                     
 
26 U.N. Doc. E/PC/T/C.II/54/Rev.1, p. 11. 
27 See Article XXVI:1 GATT. 
28 It also includes the former territories of the original contracting parties which, having gained 
independence or commercial autonomy, succeeded to contracting party status under Article XXVI:5 (c).  Chile 
is also covered.  
29 Report of the Technical Sub-Committee of th e Preparatory Committee of the International 
Conference on Trade and Employment , E/PC/T/C.II/54/Rev.1, p. 7.  TN/TF/W/2 
Page 8  
 
 VI. BASIC OBLIGATIONS 
28. Article V calls on parties to allow for freedom of transit by requiring them to comply with a 
number of specific obligations. 
29. Paragraph 2 sets out the basic re quirement of freedom of transit and further requires that " No 
distinction shall be made which is based on the flag of  vessels, the place of or igin, departure, entry, exit 
or destination, or on any circumstances relating to the ownership of goods, of ve ssels or of other means 
of transport".   Paragraph 3 allows parties to require in-transit traffic to en ter at the proper custom house, 
while at the same time stipulating the obligation not to impose "any unnecessary delays or restrictions" 
on it.   
30. Obligations regarding the nature of charges or regulations a Member ma y legitimately impose, 
are set out in paragraphs 3–5.  As a general rule, tr affic in transit shall be exempt from customs duties.  
Furthermore, such traffic is to be exempted from "all transit duties or other charges imposed in respect 
of transit, except charges for transportation or th ose commensurate with ad ministrative expenses 
entailed by transit or with the cost of services rendered" .  (Paragraph 3)  
31. This means that there are only two kinds of ch arges a Member may legitimately impose on 
traffic in transit:  charges for (i) transportation and for (ii) administra tive expenses caused by transit or 
services rendered.  And even here (as well as in th e case of other permitted formalities and regulations), 
such charges have to be reasonable
30 (paragraph 4) and non-discriminato ry (paragraph 5).  The general 
principle therefore is that tr ansit traffic shall not be a so urce of fiscal revenue.   
32. Finally, Members are require d to treat products which have been  in transit through the territory 
of another party no less favourably than they would have treated them had they been transported from 
their origin to their destin ation without passing through the territory of such other party (paragraph 6).   
VII. INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION 
33. Article V has never been applied in dispute settle ment proceedings of the GATT or the WTO.  
Violations of its provisions have been asserted sev eral times, without any of these cases ever leading 
to the issuing of a panel report.  A brief look at so me of these disputes may nevertheless be of interest, 
as they reflect the kind of questions known to arise on occasion.   
34. An early incident raising questions related to th e interpretation of freedom of transit as granted 
by paragraph 2, arose in 1989/90.  Austria's announcemen t to limit traffic of cert ain heavy trucks (of all 
nationalities) on some of its roads during night hours was followed by the introduction of a German ban 
of specific Austrian vans, which were forbidden to circulate anywhe re in Germany during night hours.  
Austria considered the German measure to violate Artic le V due to its exclusive targeting at trucks of 
Austrian origin, and requested c onsultations under Article XXII:1.31  The case was settled by mutual 
agreement.32   
35. A violation of Article V was also claimed in 1996, when th e European Commun ities asserted 
that Article 6005 (b) of th e Unites States' Cuban Democracy Act of  1992 denied goods and vessels of  
                                                      
30 On the interpretative question with respect to tran sportation charges, see the section on paragraphs 
3-5. 
31 "Each contracting party shall accord sympathetic consideration to, and shall afford adequate 
opportunity for consultation regarding such representations as may be made by another party with respect to any matter affecting the operation of this Agreement."   
32 DS14/1, C/M/241, p. 29.  TN/TF/W/2 
 Page 9 
 
 
 the Communities trans it through US ports.33  It was alleged that the provision in question prohibited34 
(i) vessels carrying goods or passengers to or from  Cuba, or carrying goods, in which Cuba or a Cuban 
national has any interest, from enteri ng any Unites States port, as well as (ii) vessels, which have entered 
a Cuban port for trade in goods or services, from lo ading or unloading freight in US ports within 
180 days following departure from the Cuban port.  A panel was established but suspended its work 
following a request by the EC.  The panel's authorit y subsequently lapsed pursuant to Article 12.12 of 
the DSU.   
36. Violations of Article V were also claimed wi th respect to measures imposed by the Slovak 
Republic concerning the transit of cattle.35  Cattle, as well as swine and gr ain, were also the subject of 
another dispute, in which Canada alleged that certain measures imposed by the United States, 
prohibiting entry or transit to Canadian trucks carry ing these products, violat ed Article V (as well as 
some other provisions).36   
37. Another dispute, leading to a request for the establishment of a panel, arose in 2000.  The 
European Communities claimed that a Chilean prohibition37 on unloading swordfish in Chilean ports 
(either to land them for warehousin g or to transship them onto othe r vessels) violated Article V's 
paragraphs 1-3 by making transit thr ough its ports impossible for swordfish.38  By forcing Community 
vessels to land or transship their catches in the ports of other countr ies, the Chilean interdiction would 
cause damage to the Community industry due to the inflicted loss of competitiveness.39  Following a 
provisional arrangement between the two parties (cir culated in a communication of 6 April 2001), Chile 
and the European Communities agreed to suspe nd the process for the constitution of the panel.40   
38. Finally, in February 2002, Slovenia brought to th e attention of the Council for Trade in Goods a 
ban imposed by Croatia on road transit of oil and oi l products through Croatian territory which it argued 
violated Article V, particularly para graphs 2, 4 and 6 of that Article.41  The concern was later expanded 
to also include additional measures subsequently intr oduced by Croatia, covering oil and oil products as 
well as several chemical products (i nternationally classified as danger ous goods), and referring to road 
transit and international road carriage.  Slovenia asse rts that those measures ar e in direct conflict with 
Article V (as well as with some other provisions).42  Croatia held that the road transit ban with respect to 
oil and oil products had been only temporary and that  the subsequently introduced measures referred to 
by Croatia were in conformity w ith the requirement s of Article V.43  The matter was finally settled in 
bilateral consultations.   
__________ 
 
 
                                                      
33 See WT/DS38/2, 8 October 1996. 
34 An exception from this prohibition is only made in the case of a special license from the US Treasury 
Department. 
35 WT/DS133. 
36 WT/DS144. 
37 Article 165 of the Chilean Fishery Law (Ley Gene ral de Pesca y Acuicultura), as consolidated by 
Presidential Supreme Decree 430 dated 28 Sept ember 1991, and extended by Decree 598 dated 
15 October 1999. 
38 WT/DS193/2, 7 November 2000. 
39 ET/DS193/1, G/L/367, 26 April 2000. 
40 See WT/DS193/3 and WT/DS193/3/Add.1. 
41 For details see G/C/W/346, 5 February 2002.  The de scription of this case limits itself to a factual 
outline of the Article V-related aspects, as the only elements of relevance for this section.  
42 For details see G/C/W/346/Add.1, 1 March 2002. 
43 For details see G/C/W/360, 18 March 2002.