. /.  RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG173/M/1 
12 June 2007 
 
 (07-2452) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Forty sixth Session  
 
 
 
CONSIDERATION OF THE FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ARMENIA AND 
MOLDOVA, GOODS  
Note on the Meeting of 15 May 2007  
 
Chairman:  Mr J. Metcalfe (United Kingdom) 
  
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/2993. 
 
2. Under Agenda Item B.IV of its 46
th Session, the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
(CRTA or the Committee) took up the considera tion of the Free Trade Agreement (FTA) between 
Armenia and Moldova, goods. 
3. The Chairman  said that the Agreement had been signed by the Parties on 24 December 1993;  
it had entered into force on 21 December 1995, foll owing their ratification, acceptance or approval.  
The Agreement, which covered trade in goods, had been notified to the WTO by Armenia on 17 June 
2004, following its accession to the WTO.  The Agre ement had been notified under Article XXIV:7 
of the GATT 1994 and the Understanding on the In terpretation of Article XXIV of GATT 1994 as 
establishing a free-trade area (WT/REG173/N/1).  The text of the Agreement, composed of 
19 Articles, had been circulated to the Members as document WT/REG173/1. 
4. On 26 January 2006, the Parties to the Agreemen t had requested the Secretariat to prepare a 
Factual Presentation on their behalf in accordance with the Guidelines on Procedures to Improve and 
Facilitate the Examination Process (document WT/REG/W/15/Add.1).  The Factual Presentation 
(document WT/REG173/3 dated 13 Ma rch 2007) had been drawn up by the WTO Secretariat on its 
own responsibility in full consultation with the Part ies.  In addition, written questions by Members 
and replies by the Parties on the Agreement had been recently distributed in document 
WT/REG173/4/Rev.1 dated 11 May 2007.  He proposed  to first ask the Parties and then other 
Members for general comments.  The Committee would then turn to the specifics of the Agreement, 
using the Factual Presentation to guide the debate section by section, followed by the questions and 
replies document. 
5. The representative of Moldova  thanked the delegations of the European Communities, the 
United States and Japan fo r their written quest ions.  Members would have had a chance to look at the 
communication distributed by the Secretariat on 11 May 2007 containing replies by the Parties.  He 
believed that the replies shed light on the points raised, in particular on the relationship between the 
Armenia-Moldova Agreemen t and the FTA between the Commonwea lth of Independent States (CIS) 
which had not yet entered into force.  Therefore, it did not interfere with and did not create legal 
consequences for the FTA betwee n Armenia and Moldova.  His dele gation was ready to respond to 
other technical questions on the FT A between Armenia and Moldova.   
6. On Section II.B.2, "Rules of origin", the representative of the United States  first thanked the 
Parties and the Secretariat for the information in  the Factual Presentation and commended the Parties 
for concluding an Agreement that fully liberali zed both markets immediately.  She noted that WT/REG173/M/1 
Page 2  
 
  question 5 by the United States relating to paragraph 14 of the Factual Presentation had simply not 
been answered.  The United  States had raised concerns about the provision that extended the concept of 
"so-called originating products" to th e nationalities of the Pa rties to the contract.  This suggested that to 
obtain preferential treatment, the goods had to be not  only from Moldova or Armenia but in addition the 
Parties to the contract had to be Armenian or Moldovan, but also coul d be a national of one of the other 
CIS countries.  This provision by limiting the nationa lity of persons who could trade preferential goods 
appeared to impose an additional trade barrier limiting the market opening opportunities, otherwise 
afforded under the FTA.  At the same time, it extend ed the benefits of the Ag reement to nationalities of 
countries who were not party to the FTA.  The Partie s had responded to the question by referring to the 
answer to question 1 from Japan.  However, this did not answer the question and she asked for an 
explanation of the rationale for these provisions and how they facilitated trade between Armenia and 
Moldova, especially since such a limitation did not exis t before the FTA went into effect.  In addition, 
she asked how extending preferences to residents of  countries that were not a Party to the FTA was 
consistent with the Parties' obligations under Ar ticle I of the GATT.  She also asked how the 
provision, which appeared to apply to trade in an y product, was consistent with the obligation under 
Article XXIV:8 to eliminate duties and other restri ctive regulations of commerce on substantially all 
the trade.  She hoped for answers on these concer ns that had been raised a few weeks ago. 
7. The representative of Armenia
 replied that a company had to be registered in Armenia to 
engage in foreign trade.  As a result, a foreign company automatically became a resident of Armenia.  This was a commitment in Armenia's GATS Schedule. 
8. The representative of the United States
 said that the response was helpful and suggested that 
the written response already provided could be amen ded to add the additional information provided. 
9. The representative of Moldova  said that he did not have any additional information at the time 
but would ask his Capital to provide additional information on this matter.   
10. The Chairman  noted that the oral discussion on the consideration of the Free Trade 
Agreement between Armenia and Moldova was concl uded.  The consideration of the goods aspects of 
the Free Trade Agreement between Armenia and Mo ldova had allowed the Committee to clarify a 
number of questions, but some others were pending.   He invited delegations to please forward any 
additional questions in writing to the Secretariat by 29 May and for Parties to respond by 25 June, 
when consideration would have been achi eved, and the CTD would be duly informed. 
11. The representative of Canada  noted that the Committee had not made any findings and had 
not drawn conclusions with respect to the consis tency of the agreement with Article XXIV of GATT 
or any other WTO agreement.  In any event, nothing in the consideration of the Agreements or in its 
reporting would prejudice the views or  the rights of Canada with respect to the consistency of the 
Agreement with WTO rules.  This statement applied to  all RTAs considered during the current session.   
12. The Committee took note  of the comments made. 
__________