European Union WT/TPR/S/248 
 Page 13 
 
 
II. TRADE POLICY REGIME 
(1) LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK  
1. The entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009 brought about major changes to 
the legal and institutional framework for EU trade an d investment policy.  The Lisbon Treaty amends  
the Treaty on European Union, signed in Maastrich t in 1992, and the Treaty establishing the European 
Community, signed in Rome in 1957, and renamed the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).
1  Together, the two amended treaties estab lish and govern the operation of the EU.  
By virtue of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU replaces and succeeds the European Community.2 
2. External trade policy, that is, trade policy rega rding non-EU countries, is an area of exclusive 
EU competence.  This me ans that only the EU can adopt legally  binding acts in this area;  member 
States may do so only if empowered by the EU, or to implement EU acts.  The Lisbon Treaty 
broadens the scope of the EU's external trade po licy to encompass foreign direct investment, thus 
establishing the EU's exclusive competence in this area.3  Prior to the Lisbon Treaty, foreign direct 
investment was partially within the scope of the EU's external trade policy.  The term "direct 
investment" has been interpreted by the Court of Jus tice of the EU to cover investment that serves to 
establish lasting and direct links with the undertakin g to which capital is made available to carry out 
an economic activity (see also Chapter III(3)(i)).4 
3. The Lisbon Treaty expressly states that the EU's external trade policy covers trade in services 
and the trade aspects of intellectual property rights, along with trade in goods and foreign direct investment.
5  Although the Treaty of Nice had previously brought services and trade-related 
intellectual property rights into exclusive EU comp etence as part of the EU's external trade policy, 
there were some exceptions.  Member States re tain varying degrees of independent regulatory 
authority, which may result in the adoption of nati onal measures that affect trade within the EU, and 
with non-EU countries. 
4. Under the Lisbon Treaty, framework legislation on external trade policy must be adopted by 
the European Parliament and the Council in accord ance with the "ordinary legislative procedure".6  
Previously, external trade legislation was adopted  by the Council alone, and did not involve the 
European Parliament.  Apart from external trad e policy, the Lisbon Treaty extends the ordinary 
legislative procedure to some 40 new cases of d ecision making in several policy areas, including the 
common agricultural policy and the common fisheries policy.7 
                                                      
1 Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European 
Community, signed at Lisbon, 13 Decem ber 2007, Official Journal (OJ) C 306, 17 December 2007.  For the 
consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, see OJ C 83, 30 March 2010.  Viewed at:  http://eur.lex.europa.eu. 
2 See WTO document WT/L/779, 30 November 2009. 
3 Article 207(1) TFEU. 
4 See, for example, Test Claimants in the FII Group Litigation , Case C-446/04, 12 December 2006,  
See also Holböck , C-157/05, 24 May 2007;  Commission/Germany , C-112/05, 23 October 2007;  and 
Commission/Spain , C-274/06, 14 February 2008.  Viewed at:  http://eur.lex.europa.eu. 
5 Article 207(1) TFEU. 
6 Article 207(2) TFEU.  The Council consists of re presentatives of each member State government at 
ministerial level.  Article 16(2) of the Treaty on European Union. 
7 For the full list of areas subject to the ordina ry legislative procedure,  see European Commission 
online information, "Ordinary Legislative Procedure Step by Step".  Viewed at:  http://ec.europa.eu/codecision/ 
stepbystep/text/index_en.htm. WT/TPR/S/248 Trade Policy Review 
Page 14 
  
5. Under the ordinary legislative procedure, only the Commission can put forward legislative 
proposals, with some exceptions.8  The European Parliament and the Council may amend the 
proposals.  If the Parliament and the Council cannot  reach agreement on draft legislation at second 
reading, a conciliation committee composed of  equal numbers of representatives from both 
institutions is convened to negotia te a joint text.  If the conciliation committee reaches an agreement, 
the text can be adopted as an EU act.  The Pa rliament and the Council agree on most legislative 
proposals at first or second reading. 
6. With the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, "comitology" is being replaced by a new legal 
framework.  Comitology refers to  the procedure whereby committees composed of representatives 
from member States control the Commission in the exercise of the "implementing powers" conferred 
on it by the legislator.9  Critics viewed the comitology procedure as opaque and failing to provide 
stakeholders with the necessary information.10  According to the Commission, the new legal 
framework will increase the transparen cy of the system for the Council and the European Parliament. 
7. The new legal framework is based on the distin ction introduced by the Lisbon Treaty between 
"delegated acts" and "implementing acts".11  The Commission may adopt a delegated act, defined as a 
"non-legislative act of general application", to ma ke certain changes to EU acts.  These changes may 
be necessary in the interest of efficiency, for exampl e to ensure that technical regulations or sanitary 
and phytosanitary measures take account of scientific  progress or specific events, without the need to 
adopt legislation (Chapter III(1)(viii)  and (ix)).  The power to adopt delegated acts may be conferred 
on the Commission only by means of an act adopted by  legislative procedure, and may be used to 
supplement or amend certain "non-essential" parts of that act.12  The Commission's exercise of 
delegated powers is subject to control by the European Parliament and the Council. 
8. For EU acts that require uniform implementation across member States, the Lisbon Treaty 
generally requires the adoption of implementing acts by the Commission.13  This is subject to the 
control of member States, in accordance with the "n ew comitology rules" that entered into force in 
March 2011 (Chart II.1).  The Commission consider s that it has acquired "a greater political 
responsibility".14  This is mainly because, under the new ru les, if a committee composed of member 
State representatives fails to reach a qualified major ity against or in favour of the Commission's draft 
implementing act, the Commission has the choice be tween adopting or reviewing the draft act.  
Definitive multilateral safeguards are the only excep tion, since their adoption requires the support of 
the qualified majority of member States.  Other c ontingency measures are subject to the standard new 
comitology rules (see Chapter III(1)(vi)). 
 
                                                      
8 Article 289 TFEU. 
9 WTO (2009). 
10 WTO (2009). 
11 Articles 290 and 291 TFEU. 
12 Article 290(2) TFEU. 
13 Article 291(2) TFEU. 
14 European Commission press release IP/10/1735, "Comitology:  new rules for Commission's 
implementing powers", 10 December 2010.  Viewed at:  http://eur-lex-europa.eu. European Union WT/TPR/S/248 
 Page 15 
 
 
a                However, the Commission may adopt the pr oposed measures without delay where this is necessary to avoid  a sign ificant
disruption of the markets in agriculture or a risk for the fina ncial interest of the EU, and submit the act immediately to the    
appeal committee.  If the appeal committee delivers a positive opinion or no opinion, these me asures remain in force.  If the 
appeal committee delivers a negative opinion, the Commission must repeal the act.Chart II.1
New comitology rules, (Article 291)
If the draft act is of general scope, or is specific and 
relates to 
- programmes with substantial implications
- agriculture and fisheries
- environment, protection of the health of humans, animals and plants-t r a d e
- taxationAdvisory procedure committee, composed
of member states'representatives and chaired 
by the Commission, delivers its opinion by 
simple majorityas a general rule, for all other draft acts
Commission  adopts the act, taking the 
utmost account of the committee's  
opinion Examination  procedure  comittee,  composed  of member
states' representatives  and chaired by the Commission,  
delivers its opinion by qualified majority
positive
opinion:
Commission  
adopts draft 
actno opinion:
Commission may  adopt draft act unless
‐it concerns taxation, financial services, the 
protection  of humans, animals, or plants 
health, or definitive  multilateral  safeguard  
measures
‐the basic act so provides
‐a simple majority of the committee  
opposes it.
In these three cases the Commission  may 
either submit the draft act within 1 month 
to the appeal committee  or submit to the 
committee  within 2 months and amended  
text. 1
If the draft act concerns the adoption  of 
definitive  antidumping  or countervaliking  
measures  and a simple majority opposes it 
the Commission  must consult the member 
states and submit the draft act to the 
appeal committeenegative
opinion:
‐Commission  
submits draft act 
within 1 month to 
the appeal 
committee  or 
‐submits within 2 
months an amended  
draft act.  1
Appeal Committe,  
composed  of 
representatives of  
the member states 
at appropriate  level 
and chaired by the 
Commission,  
delivers its opinion 
by qualified 
majority.  2positive opinion:
Commission  adopts 
draft act
no opinion:
Commission  may 
adopt draft act, unless 
it concerns definitive  
multilateral  safeguard  
measures  where in the 
absence of a positive 
opinion voted by 
qualified majority the 
Commission  must not 
adopt the draft act
negative opinion:
Commission  must not 
adopt draft actCommission proposes a draft implementing act
Source :   Council of the European Union Factsheet 7070/11, "Entry into fo rce of new comitology rules", 28 February 2011.If the draft act is of general scope, or is specific and 
relates to - programmes with substantial implications
- agriculture and fisheries
- environment, protection of the health of humans, animals and plants-t r a d e
- taxationAdvisory procedure committee, composed
of member states' representatives and 
chaired by the Commission, delivers its 
opinion by simple majorityas a general rule, for all other draft acts
Commission adopts the act, taking the 
utmost account of the committee's opinionExamination procedure committee, composed of 
member states' representatives and chaired by the 
Commission, delivers:
positive
opinion:b
Commission 
adopts draft actno opinion:Commission may adopt draft act unless
- it concerns taxation, financial services, the 
protection of humans, animals, or plants health, or definitive multilateral safeguard measures- the basic act so provides
- a simple majority of the committee 
opposes it.
In these three cases the Commission may 
either submit the draft act within 1 month to 
the appeal committee or submit to the 
committee within 2 months an amended 
text.
a
If the draft act concerns the adoption of 
definitive antidumping or countervailing 
measures and a simple majority opposes 
it the Commission must consult the member 
states and submit the draft act to the appeal 
committeenegative
opinion:b
- Commission submits 
draft act within 1 month to the appeal 
committee or 
- submits within 2 months an amended 
draft act.
a
Appeal Committe , 
composed of representatives of the 
member states at 
appropriate level and chaired by the Commission, delivers 
its opinion by 
qualified majority.
bpositive opinion:
Commission adopts draft act
no opinion:Commission may adopt draft act, unless 
it concerns definitive 
multilateral safeguard measures where in the absence of a positive opinion voted by 
qualified majority the 
Commission must not adopt the draft act
negative opinion:Commission must not 
adopt draft actCommission proposes a draft implementing act
b               By qualified majority.
 
 WT/TPR/S/248 Trade Policy Review 
Page 16 
  
9. In March 2011, the Commission issued a legisl ative proposal, known as Omnibus I, adapting 
24 trade policy regulations to the new comitology rules.15  Trade policy had not been subject to 
comitology procedures prior to the adoption of th e Lisbon Treaty.  The trade policy regulations in 
question include all instruments on contingency measures, the GSP Regulation, and the Economic 
Partnership Agreement Market Access Regulation.  The Commission's legislative proposal must be 
adopted by the Parliament and the Council in acco rdance with the ordinary legislative procedure. 
10. Before starting trade negotiations with non- EU countries, the Commission must obtain 
authorization from the Council, which acts by qua lified majority voting.  The Commission must 
conduct negotiations in consultation with a special  committee appointed by the Council, and within 
the framework of relevant Council negotiating directives.16  The Commission must report regularly to 
the special committee on the progress of the negotiati ons.  With the entry into force of the Lisbon 
Treaty, the Commission must also report on the progress of the negotiations to the European Parliament. 
11. The Lisbon Treaty significantly enhances the role of the European Parliament in the 
ratification of trade agreements by requiring the Pa rliament's consent before the Council can ratify a 
trade agreement.  The Parliament and the Council vote on trade agreements as a whole.  In the context 
of this Review, the Commission notes that "nothing could prevent the Parliament from adopting a resolution announcing that it will not give its con sent unless certain conditions are met".  According 
to the Commission, a resolution by the Parliament  would have no legal e ffect and could not be 
considered formal negotiating guidelines.  The Coun cil may agree to the provisional application of a 
trade agreement, which does not require parliamentar y consent.  However, if the Parliament refused 
consent to the conclusion of an agreement, provis ional application would ha ve to be discontinued. 
12. The European Parliament gives its consent by simple majority, while qualified majority is 
generally required for Council ratification.  Unan imity by the Council is required for agreements on 
trade in cultural and audiovisual services that "r isk prejudicing the Union's linguistic and cultural 
diversity", and for agreements in the field of social , education, and health services that "risk seriously 
disturbing the national organization of such servic es and prejudicing the responsibility of a member 
State to deliver them".
17  Council unanimity is also required for agreements on trade in services, trade-
related intellectual property rights, and foreign direct investment that include "provisions for which 
unanimity is required for the adoption of internal rules".18  Examples of these provisions include new 
restrictions on capital movements (Article 64(3) T FEU), or the harmonization of indirect taxation 
(Article 113 TFEU). 
13. To the extent that an agreement establishing a free-trade area covers certain other issues that 
are beyond the competence of the EU, it must also be ratified by national parliaments in member States.  These issues include the harmonization of member States' laws and regulations regarding 
education or the cultural objectives mentioned in Article 167 TFEU.
19  According to the European 
Commissioner for Trade, "there is still room to thi nk twice about the appropriate form of future trade 
agreements under the Lisbon Treaty".20  He raised the question of whether ratifications by national 
                                                      
15 See European Commission document COM(2011) 82 fi nal, 7 March 2011.  Viewed at:  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2011:0082:FIN:EN:PDF. 
16 Article 207 TFEU. 
17 Article 207(4) TFEU. 
18 Article 207(4) TFEU. 
19 Article 165(4) TFEU. 
20 "The Implications of the Lisbon Treaty for EU Trade Policy", Speech by the European 
Commissioner for Trade, Oporto, 8 October 2010.  View ed at:  http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/ 
october/tradoc_146719.pdf. European Union WT/TPR/S/248 
 Page 17 
 
 
parliaments in 27 member States are needed "whe n the European Parliament can now exercise 
parliamentary scrutiny over these agreements". 
(2) OBJECTIVES AND CONSULTATIONS  
14. The Lisbon Treaty considers trade policy as an in tegral part of the EU's overall external 
action.  Thus, EU trade policy must address developm ental, environmental, and social objectives, and 
contribute to the objectives set out in the Treaty on the European Union, including the development and consolidation of democracy and the rule  of law, and the respect of human rights.
21 
15. The Commission's blueprint for EU trade policy, released in November 2010, is based on the 
view that trade openness enhances economic grow th, creates jobs, and contributes to external 
competitiveness.22  The blueprint seeks to "take a more asser tive approach to ensure the benefits of 
trade reach European citizens".23  Among the blueprint's concrete  proposals are to:  complete 
negotiations at the WTO and with major trading pa rtners, including India and MERCOSUR;  deepen 
trade relations with "other strategic partners", in cluding China, Japan, Russia, and the United States, 
particularly through the removal of non-tariff barriers;  help EU businesses access global markets by setting up a mechanism to redress the balance between  open markets in the EU, for example in public 
procurement, and closed markets in some of the EU's trading partners;  negotiate comprehensive 
investment provisions with key trading partners;  en sure that EU rights are properly enforced;  and set 
up a new framework of rules for trade preferences for developing countries. 
16. The Directorate-General for Trade of the Eur opean Commission maintains the Civil Society 
Dialogue, which provides registered stakeholders w ith an opportunity to participate in dedicated 
meetings with the Commission on a wide range of tr ade and trade-related issues.  In addition, the 
Directorate-General for Trade holds public consulta tions on its major policy initiatives;  participation 
in these consultations is open to EU  and non-EU parties through a website.
24 
17. The Commission uses "trade sustainability im pact assessments" to analyse the economic, 
environmental, and social impact of EU trade agre ements for the EU and its trading partners.  Trade 
sustainability impact assessments ar e carried out by external consultants for major trade negotiations, 
after the Commission has been authorized by the Council to begin negotiatio ns;  the assessments are 
published online.25  In addition, major policy initiatives and legislative proposals by the Commission 
must undergo a regulatory impact assessment (Chapter III(1)(viii)). 
18. No countries acceded to the EU during the pe riod under review.  Accession negotiations are 
ongoing with Croatia, Iceland, and Turkey.26 
                                                      
21 Article 21 of Title V, Treaty on European Union. 
22 European Commission (2010f);  see also Commission staff working document SEC(2010) 1269.  
Both viewed at:  http://trade.ec .europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cf m?id=636&serie=382&langId=en. 
23 Europa press release IP/10/1484, 9 November 2010 , "EU sets assertive trade policy agenda for next 
five years".  Viewed at:  http://europa.eu/rap id/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1484& 
format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en.  See also European Commission (2010f). 
24 European Commission online information, "Public consultations".  Viewed at:  http://trade.ec. 
europa.eu/consultations/index.cfm. 
25 European Commission online information, "Assessments".  Viewed at:  http://ec.europa. 
eu/trade/analysis/sustainability-impact-assessments/assessments. 
26 European Commission document MEMO/10/527, 27 October 2010.  Viewed at:  http://europa.eu. WT/TPR/S/248 Trade Policy Review 
Page 18 
  
(3) PARTICIPATION IN THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION  
19. According to the Commission, maintaining the WT O system, and ensuring that it continues to 
adapt to a fast-changing world, is a central priority of EU trade policy.27  The EU's top negotiating 
priority is to complete the Doha Round by the end of 2011 at the latest.28 
20. The EU is an original Member of the WTO;  each of its member States is also a Member.  
The EU is a party to the Agreement on Government  Procurement and a participant in the Information 
Technology Agreement. 
21. The EU's commitments with respect to agricu ltural market access, domestic support, and 
export subsidies to reflect the enlargement from 15 to  27 member States have not yet been formally 
agreed in the WTO and consolidated in the EU 's goods schedule.  The EU-15 goods schedule was 
certified in early 2010.29  In the context of this Review, the Commission indicated that the EU will be 
able to proceed with the certification of the EU -25 goods schedule once all signatories of the Geneva 
Agreement on Trade in Bananas have completed the internal procedures necessa ry for the agreement's 
entry into force.  In March 2011, the General S ecretariat of the Council of the EU notified the 
Director-General of the WTO that the EU had completed these procedures.30  Furthermore, the 
negotiations to consolidate the EU's services co mmitments pursuant to Article XXI of the GATS 
following the accession of Bulgaria and Romania have not yet been concluded, nor has the certified EU-25 schedule entered into force since it has not been ratified by all member States (March 2011). 
22. The EU submitted numerous notif ications during the period under review (Table II.1).  
Neither, the EU nor its member States has notified "any new, or any changes to existing laws, 
regulations or administrative guidelines which significantly affect trade in services" under Article 
III:3 of the GATS since 1999.  According to the Co mmission, the scope of measures that would have 
to be notified under Article III:3 appears to be extr emely broad, and in the absence of reliable and up-
to-date statistics on trade in services, it is unclear which standards should appl y to determine when a 
measure significantly affects trade in services.  Moreover, the Commission notes that, given that the 
EU has commitments across virtually  all sectors, the strict application of Article III:3 would be 
administratively impracticable.  In the context of th is Review, Commission officials indicated that the 
EU is supportive of transparency and the reflec tion work proposed in the regular session of the 
Committee on Trade in Services to improve the no tification mechanism and clarify the scope of 
measures that need to be notified. 
23. Since its last Review, the EU has been involved in eight new cases as a respondent, and in 
three new cases as a complainant under the Dispute Se ttlement Understanding (Table AII.1).  The EU 
has presented 33 monthly status reports regardi ng the implementation of the Dispute Settlement 
Body's recommendations and rulings in the dispute on measures affecting the approval and marketing 
of biotech products (October 2010).
31  In the latest status report, the EU indicated that it "remains 
ready to continue its discussions with the United St ates with the goal of resolving this dispute and 
related issues."32 
                                                      
27 European Commission (2009d). 
28 European Commission (2010f). 
29 WTO documents WT/Let/667-9, 19 March 2010. 
30 General Secretariat of the Council of the European Union, Note Verbale SGS11/2903, 8 March 2011. 
31 WTO documents WT/DS291/37 and addenda. 
32 WTO document WT/DS291/37/Add.33, 15 October 2010. European Union WT/TPR/S/248 
 Page 19 
 
 
Table II.1 
Selected notifications to the WTO, June 2008-January 2011a 
Legal provision Description of requirement Frequency WTO document 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 
Article XXVIII:5 Reservation of rights to modify 
schedule Ad hoc G/MA/227, 18 December 2008 
Article XVII:4(a) and 
paragraph 1of the 
Understanding on the Interpretation of Article 
XVII State-trading enterprises and 
products traded by them Every two years (new 
and full notifications) G/STR/N/12/EEC, 18 September 2009 
Article XXIV:7(a) Customs unions and free-trade 
areas Ad hoc WT/REG280/N/1, 3 March 2010 
WT/REG285/N/1, 31 May 2010 WT/REG274/N/1, 28 September 2009 
WT/REG258/N/1, 15 December 2008 
WT/REG242/N/1, 16 July 2008 
Agreement on Agriculture 
Article 18.2 Imports under tariff quotas (Table 
MA:2) Annual G/AG/N/EEC/62,  26 October 2009 and 
/67, 18 January 2011;  the latest 
notification covers marketing year 2008/09 and calendar year 2009. 
Article 5.7 and 18.2 Special safeguard (Table MA :5) Annual G/AG/N/EEC/60, 26 March 2009;  /63, 25 
January 2010;  and / 66, 12 January 2011;  
the latest notification covers marketing 
year 2008/09. 
Article 18.2 and 18.3 Domestic support Annual/ad hoc  (DS:2) Table DS:1:  G/AG/N/EEC/59, 2 March 
2009;  /64, 4 February 2010;  /68, 24 January 2011;  and revisions to previous 
notifications;  the latest notification covers marketing year 2007/08. 
Table DS:2:  G/AG/N/EEC/58, 24 
February 2009;  /65, 4 February 2010;  and 
/69, 24 January 2011. 
Article 18.2 Export subsidies (Tables ES:1, 
ES:2 and ES:3) Annual G/AG/N/EEC/57, 25 November 2008;  
/61, 15 October 2009;  /70, 16 March 2011;  and revisions to previous 
notifications;  the latest notification covers 
marketing year 2008/09. 
Article 16.2 Possible negative effects of the 
reform programme on least-
developed and net food-importing developing countries Annual G/AG/N/EEC/56, 18 April 2008;  this 
notification covers calendar years 2004 
and 2005. 
Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 
Annex B, paragraph 3 Enquiry point Once, then changes G/SPS/ENQ/25, 15 October 2009 
Annex B, paragraph 10 National no tification authority Once, then ch anges G/SPS/NNA/15, 15 October 2009 
Article 7 and Annex B, 
paragraph 5 Proposed and adopted SPS 
regulations Ad hoc Several notifications (series 
G/SPS/N/EEC) 
Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade 
Articles 2, 3, 5 and 7 Proposed and adopted technical 
regulations and conformity 
assessment procedures Prior or, for urgent 
problems, immediately after the measure is 
taken Several notifications (series 
G/TBT/N/EEC) 
Article 10.1 and 10.3 Enquiry point Once, then changes G/TBT/ENQ/35/Rev.2, 13 May 2009 
Paragraph J of the Code of 
Good Practice for the 
Preparation, Adoption and 
Application of Standards Work programme of bodies that 
have accepted the Code Semi-annual ISO/IEC, WTO TBT Standards Code 
Directory  
Table II.1 (cont'd) WT/TPR/S/248 Trade Policy Review 
Page 20 
  
Legal provision Description of requirement Frequency WTO document 
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement) 
Article 16.4 Anti-dumping actions Semi-annual G/ADP/N/202/EEC, 5 October 2010b 
Article 16.4 Anti-dumping actions Ad hoc G/ADP/N/212, 8 March 2011b 
Agreement on Rules of Origin  
Annex II, paragraph 4 Preferential rules of origin Once, then changes 
and new rules Last notification in 1995 
Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures 
Article 7.3 Questionnaire Annual G/LIC/N/3/EEC/13, 19 October 2010b 
Agreement on Subsidies a nd Countervailing Measures 
Article 25.1 Subsidies Every two years (new 
and full notifications) G/SCM/N/186/EEC, 23 December 2009, 
and addenda. 
Article 25.11 Countervailing duties actions Semi-annual G/SCM/N/212/EEC, 11 October 2010b 
Article 25.11 Countervailing duties actions Ad hoc G/SCM/N/218, 9 December 2010b 
Agreement on Safeguards 
Article 12.1(a) Initiation of an investiga tion Ad hoc G/SG/N/6/EEC/5, 5 July 2010 
Article 12.6 Legislation Ad hoc G/SG/N/1/EEC/2, 12 November 2010 
General Agreement on Trade in Services 
Article III:3 New or changes to laws or 
regulations that significantly 
affect trade in services Annual Last notification in 1999 
Articles III:4 and IV:2 Contact a nd enquiry points Once, then change s S/ENQ/78/Rev.11, 26 October 2009 
Article V:7(a) Economic integration agreements Ad hoc S/C/N/557, 22 June 2010 
S/C/N/517, 14 October 2009 S/C/N/515, 12 October 2009 
S/C/N/514, 7 October 2009 
Agreement on Trade-Related Aspect s of Intellectual Property Rights 
Article 63.2 Laws and regulations Once, then changes IP/N/1/EEC/4, 28 January 2010 
IP/N/1/EEC/G/5-7 
Article 69 Contact points Once, then ch anges IP/N/7/Rev.3/Add.2, 26 January 2011 
TRIPS Council meeting of 
22-25 July 1996 Contact points for technical 
cooperation Once, then changes IP/N/7/Rev.3, 17 February 2010 
Agreement on Government Procurement 
WTO document GPA/1, 
Annex 3 National threshold Biennial GP A/W/309/Add.4, 5 February 2010 
Article XIX:5 Procurement statistics Annual GPA/94/Add.4, 15 July 2010b 
Other 
GATT document L/4903 
(Decision of 28 November 
1979) MFN derogation in favour of 
developing countries Ad hoc WT/COMTD/N/4/Add.4, 12 March 2009 
WTO document G/L/59 
(Decision on Notification 
Procedures for Quantitative Restrictions) Quantitative restrictions Biennial  Last notification in 2003 
a Unless otherwise indicated. 
b Refers only to the most recent notification. 
Source:  WTO Secretariat. 
(4) PREFERENTIAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS  
(i) Unilateral preferences 
24. In July 2008, the Council adopted a revised sch eme of generalized tariff preferences for the 
period January 2009 to December 2011.  The revised  scheme was notified to the WTO in March 2009 European Union WT/TPR/S/248 
 Page 21 
 
 
and is based on Regulation No 732/2008.33  The new Regulation does not introduce any substantive 
changes to the EU's Generalized System of Prefer ences (GSP).  In March 2011, the EU was preparing 
a proposal to amend its GSP regime. 
25. The EU's GSP consists of three arrangement s:  standard GSP, which provides tariff 
preferences to eligible developing countries;  GSP+, which offers additional tariff reductions to 
"vulnerable" countries that implement international standards in the fields of human rights, core 
labour standards, sustainable development, and good governance;  and Everything But Arms (EBA), 
which grants duty- and quota-free access for products from least developed countries (LDCs).34  The 
EU eliminated tariff quotas on imports of rice and sugar under EBA in late 2009.  Importers of EBA 
sugar must purchase at a price not lower than 90%  of the EU reference price until September 2012. 
26. Regulation No 732/2008 introduces several techni cal changes.  The most significant is the 
withdrawal and restoration of preferences based on updated statistics:  preferential treatment is 
withdrawn for a product group from a beneficiary country if, during the previous three years, the beneficiary country's exports of th at product group into the EU exceed 15% of total EU imports of the 
same product group from GSP beneficiary countries.   For textiles and clothing, the threshold is 
12.5%.  For the period 2009-11, preferences were withdrawn for footwear and other products under 
HS Section XII from Viet Nam, and restored for:  Algeria (minerals);  India (jewellery, pearls, 
precious metals, and stones);  I ndonesia (wood and articles of wood);  Russia (chemical products and 
base metals);  South Africa (transport equipm ent);  and Thailand (transport equipment). 
27. Furthermore, the EU may withdraw GSP preferences temporarily for the reasons listed under 
Article 15 of the GSP Regulation.  These include:  ser ious and systematic violations of core human 
and labour rights conventions;  serious  shortcomings in customs controls;  and serious and systematic 
unfair trading practices.  Temporary withdrawal is preceded by an investigation.  During the period 
under review, GSP+ preferences for Sri Lanka were  withdrawn temporarily;  an investigation in 
relation to El Salvador's GSP+ preferences was terminated without temporary withdrawal.
35  GSP 
preferences for a product from a given country may be removed under the GSP's safeguard clause if 
imports of that product "cause, or threaten to cau se, serious difficulties to a Community producer of 
like or directly competing products".36  The EU did not remove any GSP preferences under the 
safeguard clause during the review period. 
28. In October 2010, 15 WTO Members qualified for GSP+ preferences.37  EBA preferences are 
available for the 49 LDCs recognized by the United Nations. 
29. The overall importance of GSP in total EU imports  is low.  For example, in 2008 some 86% 
of total EU imports entered under MFN, compared  with around 5% under standard GSP, GSP+, and 
EBA.38  However, GSP preferences are important in particular sectors and countries.  Imports under 
GSP accounted for almost 29% of total EU imports of footwear in 2008, 28% of animal and vegetable 
                                                      
33 WTO document WT/COMTD/N/4/Add.4, 12 March 2009;  and Council Regulation (EC) 
No 732/2008, 22 July 2008, applying a scheme of generalized tariff preferences for the period 1 January 2009 to 
31 December 2011;  amending Regulations (EC) No 552 /97, (EC) No 1933/2006;  and Commission Regulations 
(EC) No 1100/2006 and (EC) No 964/2007. 
34 For a detailed description of the three arrangements, see WTO (2009). 
35 Regulations Implementing Regulation (EU) No 143/2010 of the Council of 15 February 2010 
(OJ L45, 20 February 2010) and Commission document C(2009) 7936. 
36 Article 20, Regulation (EC) No 732/2008. 
37 Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Ri ca, Ecuador, El Salvador, Georgia, Guatemala, 
Honduras, Mongolia, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, and Paraguay. 
38 Centre for the Analysis of Regional Integration at Sussex (undated). WT/TPR/S/248 Trade Policy Review 
Page 22 
  
fats, 23% of live animals, and 21% of raw hides.  Of the 49 EBA beneficiaries in 2008, 7 exported 
more than 75% of their exports to the EU under EB A zero duties.  For two GSP+ beneficiaries, more 
than half of their exports to the EU entered under GSP+.  Three countries exported more than half of 
their total exports to the EU under the standard GSP. 
30. Based on data provided by the Commission, av erage preference margins under standard GSP 
(excluding GSP+ and EBA) relative to MFN are around 2 percentage points or less for all major 
product categories except prepared food, for which th e margin is slightly higher (2.7 percentage 
points).  Prepared food also has the highest average preference margin among major product 
categories under GSP+ (almost 12 percentage points), followed by footwear with around 7 percentage 
points.  Under EBA, the average preference margin is almost 12 percentage points for prepared food, 
9 percentage points for live animals, 9 percentage points for textile articles, and around 4 percentage 
points for vegetable products.  In 2009, the latest year for which data are available, utilization rates 
were 53% for standard GSP, 86% for GSP+, a nd 69% for EBA.  According to the EU, these 
utilization rates are "negatively affected by th e availability for many beneficiary countries of 
alternative preferential arrangements such as free-tr ade agreements or autonomous trade preferences". 
31. New GSP rules of origin have applied sin ce January 2011 (Chapter III(1)(iii)).  The EU 
notified its new GSP rules of origin in March 2011.39 
32. The EU grants unilateral preferential tariff tr eatment to industrial and some agricultural 
products from Moldova, under a WTO waiv er that expires in December 2013.40  I t  a l s o  g r a n t s  
unilateral preferential tariff treatment to six c ountries in the Western Balkans under a WTO waiver 
that expires in December 2011 (see section (ii) below).41 
33. The trade provisions of the Cotonou Agreement granting trade preferences to African, 
Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries expired on 31 December 2007.  In advance of the application of comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreemen ts (EPAs) by ACP countries, since January 2008 
the EU has granted "advance EPA treatment" in th e form of duty- and quota-free access for products 
from ACP countries that have initialled an EPA (see section (ii) below).
42 
(ii) Reciprocal preferences 
34. Trade and economic relations with Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway are governed by 
bilateral free-trade agreements (FTAs) with th e EU and the agreement on the European Economic 
Area, which extends most EU single market legisl ation to these countries.  Switzerland also has an 
FTA with the EU and implements EU legislation in areas covered by several bilateral agreements.   
Customs unions are in force with Andorra, Turkey, and San Marino. 
35. Apart from these agreements, the EU has FTAs in force with:  Albania, Algeria, Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, CARIFORUM states, Chile, Croatia, Egypt, Faroe Islands, Former Yugoslav Republic 
of Macedonia (FYROM), Israel, Jordan, Lebanon,  Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Palestinian 
Authority, Serbia, South Africa, Tunisia, and certain overseas countries and territories.  The FTAs 
with Albania, CARIFORUM states, Chile, Croatia , FYROM, Montenegro, and Mexico cover both 
goods and services;  the rest cover only goods.  The EU  considers that "free-trade agreements (FTAs), 
if approached with care, can build on WTO and other international rules by going further and faster in 
                                                      
39 WTO document G/RO/N/69, 29 March 2011. 
40 WTO document WT/L/722, 15 May 2008. 
41 WTO document WT/L/654, 2 August 2008. 
42 Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 of 20  December 2007 (OJ L 348 , 31 December 2007). European Union WT/TPR/S/248 
 Page 23 
 
 
promoting openness and integration, by tackling i ssues which are not ready for multilateral discussion 
and by preparing the ground for the next  level of multilateral liberalisation".43 
36. During the period under review, FTAs entered into force with Albania (services aspects), 
Bosnia and Herzegovina (goods aspects), Monteneg ro (services aspects), and Serbia (good aspects) 
(Table II.2).  Previously, stabilization and associati on agreements had entered into force with Croatia 
and the FYROM.  Unilateral trade preferences granted to these six Members expired at the end of 2010 and have not yet been extended (March 2011). 
Table II.2 
Overview of recent EU trade agreements, December 2010a 
EU-ALBANIA 
Title FTA between the EU and Albania (goods and services) 
Parties EU, Albania 
Date of signature/entry into force 12.06. 2006/01.12.2006 (goods) and 01.04.2009 (services) 
Transition for full implementation 
(goods) 10 years 
Main products excluded from 
liberalization (EU) HS 0102, 0201, 0202, 2204 
Services covered Yes 
EU merchandise trade (2009) 0.1% of total EU imports;  0.2% of total EU exports 
WTO document series WT/REG226 
EU-BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA 
Title FTA between the EU and Bosnia and Herzegovina (goods) 
Parties EU, Bosnia and Herzegovina 
Date of signature/entry into force 16.06.2008/01.07.2008 
Transition for full implementation 
(goods) 5 years 
Main products excluded from 
liberalization (EU) Certain tariff lines under HS 0102 and 0201, and so me fish and fish products;  all lines 
under HS 0202;  certain tariff items of baby beef, fishery products, and sugar are subject 
to preferential tariff rate quotas. 
Services covered No 
EU merchandise trade (2009) 0.1% of total EU imports;  0.3% of total EU exports 
WTO document series WT/REG242 
EU-MONTENEGRO 
Title FTA between the European Union and Montenegro (goods and services) 
Parties EU, Montenegro 
Date of signature/entry into force 15.10. 2007/01.01.2008 (goods) and 01.05.2010 (services) 
Transition for full implementation 
(goods) 5 years 
Main products excluded from 
liberalization (EU) Certain tariff lines under HS 0102 and 0201, and so me fish and fish products;  all lines 
under HS 0202, 1701, and 1702;  certain tariff items of baby beef, fishery products, and 
sugar are subject to preferential tariff rate quotas. 
Services covered Yes 
EU merchandise trade (2009) 0% of total EU imports and 0% of total EU exports 
WTO document series WT/REG236 
Table II.2 (cont'd) 
                                                      
43 European Commission (2006a). WT/TPR/S/248 Trade Policy Review 
Page 24 
  
 
EU-SERBIA 
Title FTA between the EU and the Republic of Serbia (goods) 
Parties EU, Serbia 
Date of signature/entry into force 29.04.2008/01.02.2010 
Transition for full implementation 
(goods) 6 years 
Main products excluded from 
liberalization (EU) Certain tariff lines under HS 0102 and 0201;  a ll lines under HS 0202;  certain tariff items 
of baby beef, fishery products, and sugar ar e subject to preferential tariff rate quotas. 
Services covered No 
EU merchandise trade (2009) 0.3% of total EU imports and 0.6% of total EU exports 
WTO document series WT/REG285 
EU-CARIFORUM STATES 
Title EPA between the CARIFORUM States and the EU 
Parties EU, Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Ba rbados, Belize, Dominica, Dominican Republic, 
Grenada, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and 
the Grenadines, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago 
Date of signature/entry into force Signature:  15. 10.2008 except for Guyana (01. 11.2008), and Haiti (11.12.2009);  
provisional application:  29.12. 2008;  Haiti is due to apply the agreement once it has been 
ratified. 
Transition for full implementation 
(goods) CARIFORUM States are due to complete thei r tariff elimination process within 15 years 
of 1 January 2011. 
Main products excluded from liberalization (EU) No exclusions;  until 2015, EU imports of s ugar are subject to a transitional safeguard 
mechanism if they exceed a dual threshold 
Services covered Yes 
EU merchandise trade (2009) 0.4% of total EU imports and 0.4% of total EU exports 
WTO document series WT/REG255 
a This table covers agreements that entered into force between  mid-2008 and end-2010 and have been notified to the WTO.  The 
EPA between the EU and Papua New Guinea has been applied provisionally since 20 December 2009, but has not yet been 
notified to the WTO.  The EPAs with Cameroon and Côte d'Ivoire have been notified to the WTO, but their entry into force is 
awaiting ratification by Ca meroon and Côte d'Ivoire. 
Source : WTO Secretariat.  
37. The EU's trading arrangements with ACP c ountries are covered by EPAs in seven ACP 
country configurations:  CARIFORUM, Pacific, Central Africa, West Africa, Southern African 
Community, Eastern African Community, and Eastern and Southern Africa.  Since January 2008, the EU has granted duty- and quota-free access to all AC P countries that have at least initialled an EPA.
44  
EU imports of sugar under EPAs are subject to a transitional safeguard mechanism until 2015.  The 
CARIFORUM region has concluded a so-called "c omprehensive EPA" covering trade in goods and 
services, investment, and trade-related issues lik e innovation and intellectual property.  The other 
regions have concluded negotiations for "interim EPAs" cove ring trade in goods while negotiations 
for comprehensive EPAs continue.  The EU and Papua New Guinea have signed and ratified an 
interim EPA.  Other interim EPAs were initialled or signed with Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, 
Comoros, Côte d'Ivoire, Fiji, Ghana, Kenya, Leso tho, Madagascar, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia, 
Rwanda, Seychelles, Swaziland, Ta nzania, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimb abwe.  Since 2000, a bilateral 
Trade, Development and Cooperation Agreement has b een in force between the EU and South Africa. 
38. FTAs in force with Algeria, Egypt, Israel , Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, the Palestinian 
Authority, and Tunisia are part of Association Ag reements concluded in the context of the Euro-
Mediterranean partnership, which seeks to liber alize trade between the EU and individual 
Mediterranean countries, and between  the Mediterranean countries themselves.  The FTAs cover trade 
                                                      
44 Council Regulation (EC) No 1528/2007 of 20  December 2007 (OJ L 348 , 31 December 2007). European Union WT/TPR/S/248 
 Page 25 
 
 
in goods;  the EU concluded negotiati ons to liberalize further trade in  agriculture and fisheries with 
Jordan (2007), Israel and Egypt (2008), Morocco (2009), and the Palestinian Authority (2010).  Negotiations are ongoing with Tunisia.  The EU  signed bilateral protocols establishing dispute 
settlement mechanisms for the reso lution of trade disputes with Tunisia (2009), and Egypt, Lebanon, 
and Morocco (2010).  In addition, the EU initialled a protocol with Jordan in 2010.  Negotiations on 
the liberalization of trade in services are ongoi ng with Egypt, Israel, Morocco, and Tunisia. 
39. The EU signed an FTA with Korea in Octobe r 2010, covering goods and services.  The FTA 
will be applied provisionally from July 2011.  In February 2011, the European Parliament gave its 
consent to the agreement, whose formal conclusion is subject to ratification by EU member States. 
40. The EU concluded FTA negotiations with Colo mbia and Peru in March 2010.  Ecuador 
suspended its participation in these negotiations in July 2009.  The ne gotiations toward an Association 
Agreement, including an FTA, between the EU an d Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, 
Nicaragua, and Panama were concl uded in May 2010.  The EU expects the trade provisions of these 
agreements to enter into force during the first half of 2012. 
41. During the period under review, the EU launc hed free-trade negotiations with Canada, 
Malaysia, and Singapore.  FTA ne gotiations with MERCOSUR were "relaunched" in May 2010.  
FTA negotiations with India and Ukraine are ongoing;   those with a group of seven ASEAN countries 
are on hold, as are the negotiations with the Gulf Cooperation Council. 
(5) I
NVESTMENT AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS  
42. There are some 1,200 bilateral investment treaties (BITs) in force between individual EU 
member States and non-EU countries.45  In addition, several BITs are in force among EU member 
States.  The vast majority of BITs conclude d by EU member States establish provisions on the 
protection of investment at the post-establishm ent phase and do not cover entry conditions.  In 
addition, the EU has concluded several internationa l agreements with third countries with provisions 
on market access for foreign investment, and post- establishment national treatment and most favoured 
nation treatment for sectors liberalized by the parti es.  According to the European Commission, this 
"clear and complementary division of labour in the field of investment has resulted in a rather large 
and atomised universe of investment agreements".46 
43. The Lisbon Treaty integrates foreign direct invest ment into EU external trade policy, thus 
attributing to the EU exclusive competence in this  area (see section (1) above).   As a result, member 
States are no longer competent to negotiate internati onal agreements on foreign direct investment with 
third countries unless empowered to do so by the EU.  Furthermore, the Commission notes that "the 
continuing existence of Member States' internati onal agreements relating to investment, and the 
commitments undertaken therein, are questionable in  relation to the EU's exclusive competence on 
foreign direct investment".47 
                                                      
45 European Commission document COM (2010) 343 fina l, 7 July 2010.  Viewed at:  http://trade.ec. 
europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/july/tradoc_146307.pdf. 
46 European Commission document COM (2010) 343 fina l, 7 July 2010.  Viewed at:  http://trade.ec. 
europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/july/tradoc_146307.pdf. 
47 European Commission online information, "Roadmap on the Proposal for a Regulation of the 
European Parliament and the Council establishing transitional arrangements for international investment 
agreements between Member States and third co untries".  Viewed at:  http://ec.europa.eu/ 
governance/impact/planned_ia/ docs/86_trade_international_investment_agreements_en.pdf. WT/TPR/S/248 Trade Policy Review 
Page 26 
  
44. In July 2010, the Commission released a draft Regulation establishing transitional 
arrangements for bilateral investment agreements between member States and third countries.  The 
regulation seeks to maintain legal certainty for inve stors after the transfer of competence on foreign 
direct investment to the EU.48  The draft regulation must be approved by the Council and the 
European Parliament under the ordinary legislative procedure.  Under the draft Regulation, member 
States are authorized to maintain in force BITs th at they notify to the Co mmission.  The Commission 
may withdraw authorization for BITs that:  conflict with EU law;  overlap with an existing agreement 
between the EU and a third country, and the overlap is not addressed in the agreement with the EU;  
or undermines EU investment policy.  Member States must also notify the Commission of, and seek 
its authorization for the modification of existi ng BITs, or the conclusion of new ones.  The 
Commission can deny authorization if the member State's initiative undermines the objectives of EU 
negotiations or policy.  In addition, member States must submit, prior to signature, negotiated texts of 
new or modified BITs for the Commission's approval. 
45. In 2009, the Court of Justice of the EU found that Austria, Sweden, and Finland were in 
breach of EC Treaty obligations by maintaining BI Ts with third countries containing provisions that 
may interfere with the EU's power to restrict capital movements.49 
46. According to the Commission, the integration of  foreign direct investment into the EU's 
external trade policy offers the opportunity "to defi ne an EU investment policy that will add an 
important dimension to the external co mpetitiveness strategy of the Union."50  In July 2010, the 
Commission released its proposed policy for EU co mprehensive investment negotiations with third 
countries.51  The Commission believes that EU internati onal investment policy should seek to ensure 
the uniform treatment of EU investors, because the network of existing BITs results in an "uneven 
playing field for EU companies investing abroad, depending on whether they are covered as a 'national' under a certain Member State BIT or not." 
47. The policy also sets out criteria for the selection of negotiating partners.  These criteria 
include trade and investment flows, economic grow th prospects, and the political, institutional and 
economic climate.  In the short term, the Commis sion is interested in covering both investment 
protection and liberalization in its ongoing FTA negotiations, including with Canada, India, and 
Singapore.  In the medium term, the Commission will explore the possibility of pursuing comprehensive, stand-alone investment agre ements, with for example China and Russia. 
(6) A
ID FOR TRADE  
48. The EU and its member States are among the leading providers of aid for trade.  In 
October 2007, the Council adopted an aid-for-trade  strategy, which aims to support developing 
countries "to better integrate into the rules-based  world trading system and to use trade more 
effectively in promoting the overarching objective of eradicating poverty".52  The strategy is a joint 
                                                      
48 European Commission document COM(2010) 344 final, 7 July 2010.  Viewed at:  
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/july/tradoc_146308.pdf. 
49 Judgments C-205/06 and C-249/06, 3 March 2009;  and judgement C-118/07, 19 November 2009. 
50 European Commission online information, "Roadmap:  Commission Communication on EU 
investment policy", 19 March 2010.  Viewed at:  http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact /planned_ia/docs/ 
87_trade_ eu_investment_policy_en.pdf. 
51 European Commission document COM(2010) 343 final, 7 July 2010.  Viewed at:  
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2010/july/tradoc_146307.pdf. 
52 Council of the European Union press release 13873/07 (Presse 235), "Council agrees strategy on aid 
for trade", 15 October 2007.  Viewed at:  http://www .consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/ 
en/misc/96506.pdf. European Union WT/TPR/S/248 
 Page 27 
 
 
initiative between member States and the EU.  As part of the strategy, the Commission publishes an 
annual monitoring report on EU and member St ate aid-for-trade spending and implementation.53 
49. According to the Commission, aid-for-trade co mmitments by the EU and its member States 
increased to a record high of €10.4 billion in 200 8, around one fifth of total EU and member State 
official development assistance.  Average annual aid-for-trade commitments by the EU and its 
member States for the period 2001-04 totalled €5.1 billi on.  As a share of total official development 
assistance, aid for trade has in creased steadily since 2004. 
50. In 2008, EU and member State support for trade-re lated assistance exceeded the target set in 
2005 to provide €2 billion annually by 2010 (€1 billion by the EU and €1 billion by member States).  
Actual commitments totalled €2.15 billion (€1.14 bi llion by member States and €1.01 billion by the 
EU). 
51. Africa was the top recipient of EU aid for trade in 2008, with approximately €4.6 billion of 
the total, followed by Asia with around €2.2 b illion, Europe (€1.3 billion), the Americas 
(€0.7 billion), and Oceania (less than €0.01 billio n);  the remainder corresponds to the category 
"developing countries unspecified".  Aid for trade for ACP countries increased to €3 billion in 2008. 
52. The EU refined its collection of information rela ting to the implementation of its aid-for-trade 
strategy in 2009, and requested its field offices to provide information on several aid-for-trade 
subjects.  In the context of this Review, the Co mmission indicated that this exercise had helped to 
establish "a snapshot of how things are working on aid for trade across countries in which the EU is 
providing aid for trade".  Based on this information, the Commission concluded that trade issues are a 
common element of EU donors' policy dialogue with part ner countries.  It also found that, while many 
member States have some experience with joint n eeds assessment, strategy formulation, programmes, 
or delivery, these approaches could be applied more consistently.54  According to the Commission, 
these findings are being addressed in 2011. 
 
                                                      
53 European Commission online information.  Viewed at:  http://ec.europa.eu/trade/wider-
agenda/development/aid-for-trade. 
54 European Commission staff working paper SEC(2009) 442 (Aid for Trade monitoring report 2009), 
8 April 2009.  Viewed at:  http://ec.europa.eu/de velopment/icenter/repository/COMM_NATIVE_SEC_2009_ 
0442_4_Aid-for-Trade-monitoring-report-2009_EN.pdf.