RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/C/W/297 
13 March 2009 
 (09-1257) 
Council for Trade in Services Original:   English 
  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM SWITZERLAND 
 
Compliance with notification requirements under the GATS
 
  
 The following communication, dated 10 March 2009, from the delegation of Switzerland, is 
being circulated to the Members of the Council for Trade in Services.  
_______________ 
 
 
I. THE NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE GATS 
1. The General Agreement on Trade in Services contains a number of notification requirements. 
This communication focuses principally on the requ irements pursuant to Articles III and VII of the 
GATS. It does not elaborate on other GATS notification requirements such as Article V of the GATS. 
2. Article III:3 of the GATS reads : 
“Each Member shall promptly and at least annually inform the Council for 
Trade in Services of the introductio n of any new, or any changes to 
existing, laws, regulations or admin istrative guidelines which significantly 
affect trade in services covered by its  specific commitments under this 
Agreement.” 
The main features of this provision are thus: 
− each Member is subject to the obligation of Article III:3; 
− in terms of time frame the main rule is to  notify “promptly”, but as a subsidiary rule 
notification shall be performed “at least a nnually”. The term “promptly” seems to mean 
promptly after enactment, as the term “introduction” suggests (in contrast to the ex ante  
notification provided for in Article VII:4(b)); 
− the notification obligation is applicable to ne w acts as well as to amendments of existing 
acts; 
− in contrast to the definition of “measures” contained in Article XXVIII of the GATS, the 
scope of the notification obligation is more lim ited to the extent that it is applicable only 
to “laws, regulations or administrative guidelines”, this being an exhaustive list; 
− the new act, or the amendment to an existi ng act, must “significantly affect trade in 
services”. The term “Trade in services” is de fined in Article I:2 of  the GATS and covers 
all modes of supply. “Services” is defined in Article I:3(b) of the GATS; 
− only acts covering services sectors that are co mmitted are subject to Article III, which 
obviously captures all acts of horizontal nature ( e.g. immigration laws, company laws, 
etc.). 
 S/C/W/297 
Page 2  
 
  3. A second notification requirement under the GATS relates to recognition and is provided for 
in Article VII:4 of the GATS, which reads: 
“Each Member shall: 
[...] “(b) promptly inform the Council for Trade in Services as far in advance 
as possible of the opening of ne gotiations on an agreement or 
arrangement of the type referred to in paragraph 1 in order to 
provide adequate opportunity to any other Member to indicate their interest in participating in the negotiations before they enter a 
substantive phase; 
“(c) promptly inform the Council fo r Trade in Services when it adopts 
new recognition measures or signific antly modifies existing ones and 
state whether the measures are based on an agreement or arrangement of the type referred to in paragraph 1.” 
The main features of this provision are thus : 
− Article VII:4 applies to recognition whet her based on an agreement or granted 
autonomously, as stated, respectively, in sub-paragraphs (b) and (c); 
− the obligation of sub-paragraph (b) applies ex ante ; 
− the obligation of sub-paragraph (c) a pplies upon adoption of new measures or 
modification thereof; 
− in respect of the recognition of prudential measures sub-paragraph 3(c) of the Annex on 
Financial Services applies; 
− otherwise, Article VII:4 applies to any type  of recognition referred to in paragraph 1, 
i.e. “education or experience obtained, requirements met, or licenses or certifications 
granted”, whether applicable to juridical or  to natural persons and whether of sector-
specific or of horizontal nature. 
 4. Other notification requirements are estab lished under the GATS in particular under 
Article V:7  (Economic Integration) and V bis (Labour Markets Integration Agreements), 
Article XII:4 (Restrictions to Safeguard the Balance of  Payments), Article XIV bis (Security 
Exemptions), or paragraph 7 of the Annex on Artic le II MFN Exemptions, this being a non exhaustive 
list. Sometimes, the notification requirement exp licitly applies also to “changes” to the measure 
introduced (Article XII) or to its “termination” (Article XIV bis). 
5. None of the notification requirements cover trade agreements of limited scope, i.e. those 
agreements that are not comprehensive enough to qualify under Article V. Members’ Lists of MFN 
Exemptions provide examples of such agreements. However, in cases where such agreements contain 
recognition provisions, the notification re quirement under Article VII would apply.
1 
                                                      
1 A comprehensive presentation of notification requ irements is contained in the “Guidelines for 
notifications under the General Agreement on Trade in Services”, S/L/5 of 4 April 1995.  S/C/W/297 
 Page 3 
 
 
  II. THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NOTIFICA TION REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE 
GATS  
6. A summary of notifications received under the GATS was made in July 1997.2 Summaries of 
notifications by single Members are being presented in some respects in the context of Trade Policy 
Reviews. In spite of that, a general and updated ev aluation of the implementation of the notification 
requirements under the GATS would be helpful. Wit hout an up-to-date evaluation there is yet no 
concrete basis to define a direction of a work to  be done in this area in the Council for Trade in 
Services. 
7. Some indications were perceived as to potentia l difficulties in performing notification. For 
example, a better understanding of what has to be  notified or of how to organize oneself - as a 
Member - to efficiently and promptly fulfil th e requirements may be necessary in certain cases. 
8. It is worthwhile examining whether there is scope or a necessity to improve, or ways to 
facilitate, the implementation of th e notification requirements under th e GATS.  This relates both to 
the promptness of notification and to the volume (question of a possible deficit in notification). 
9. A difficulty in evaluating the implementation of the notification requirements lies in the fact 
that figures are not the only reference.  A low numbe r of notifications may indeed either mean that 
implementation is poor, or that in effect only fe w measures “which significantly affect trade in 
services” were introduced. Even the ab sence of any notification is not a priori  a cause for concern. 
The best example is Article XIV bis, where the quasi absence of any notification to date under this 
GATS provision is simply a confirmation that no such measure has ever been introduced by 
Members. 
III. RATIONALE AND BENEFITS OF NOTIFICATION DISCIPLINES  
10. Well implemented notification disciplines bring benefits in several respects. Members get to 
know each other better and have an opportunity, if th ey so wish, to exchange questions and answers 
on the occasion of the presentation of the notifications in  the Council for Trade in Services.  It allows 
the notifying administration to keep  track of legislative processes a nd in particular to monitor the 
relationship of newly introduced legal provisi ons with the GATS obligations and specific 
commitments.  Notification contributes to legislativ e transparency vis-à-vis trading partners and the 
private sector.  The latter would be in a position to identify more easily new business opportunities or new trade obstacles. 
11. In terms of mutual recognition agreements (M RA), notification allows Members to identify 
opportunities to join a specific MRA or to solicit the negotiation of a similar MRA. 
12. In certain cases, a proper implementation of no tification requirements is a condition to make 
it possible for Members to exercise their rights under the GATS.  For example, only if the negotiation 
of a recognition agreement is notified in advance can Members indicate their interest to participate to 
such negotiation before it is concluded.  If notifi cation is not performed on time, the said right is 
frustrated. Similarly, absence of a notification under Article XII would undermine the provisions of 
paragraph 5 of that Article rega rding consultations in the Balance of Payments Committee of the 
General Council.
 3 
                                                      
2 See Note “Notifications under the General Agreemen t on Trade in Services”, S/C/4 of 14 July 1997. 
3 Unlike other notification requirements, restrictions to safeguard the balance of payments have to be 
notified to the General Council. According to S/L/5, “m odalities for notifications made under Article XII:4 will 
be determined by the Balance of Payments Committee and the General Council”. S/C/W/297 
Page 4  
 
  13. Notification is, in certain cases, essential to protect the legal interest of the notifying Member 
itself. If a balance-of-payment restriction is duly notif ied in time, there is no doubt that in the view of 
that Member the said restriction is considered to be a BOP restriction as defined under Article XII:1. 
Conversely, in the absence of such notification it will be impossible for the Member, after time has 
passed, to retroactively argue that the restriction was intended to be introduced under Article XII. 
14. Notification allows the national administra tion to systematically identify possible 
improvements of its regimes with a view to  offering improvements to its GATS specific 
commitments. Conversely, notifications are a m eans for Members to iden tify possible areas where 
liberalization measures are introduced and to enquire  about perspectives for improvements of specific 
commitments. Notification may also facilitate the wo rk of the WTO secretariat and of Members in the 
context of trade policy reviews.  
IV. THE ORGANIZATION OF NOTIFICATION IN A NATIONAL ADMINISTRATION 
15. One characteristic of the universe of services is that it covers a great number of sectors, and 
thus a great number of regulators and authorities.  This implies that, in order to gain in terms of efficiency, the way the process is internally organized is critical. 
16. There is definitely no generally applicable “id eal” way to internally structure the notification 
process since each national administration has its proper  culture and rules.  However, basic questions 
or possible options do not differ significantly across national administrations.  In any case, the better 
the organization at the national level, the be tter the quality of the implementation of GATS 
requirements. 
17. By way of illustration, Switzerland has internally tested a number of options. Initially, the 
process was decentralized.  The services team’s function was limited to dispatching at regular 
intervals to the ministries an explanatory note on  Article III, copies of the forms and a reminder. 
Filling in and returning the forms was the ministri es’ task.  For various reasons this system was 
subsequently reversed.  Experts in ministries complained that the form was not obvious to fill and that they needed more explanation in addition to the explanatory note, especially in case of job rotation. 
The system thus evolved towards a more centrally-dri ven process.  Both the selection of the acts to be 
notified and the filling in of forms are now the r esponsibility of the services team which then sends 
those filled forms to the authority in charge for conf irmation.  Doing so made it possible to have a sort 
of continuous notification process as opposed to th e periodical process that prevailed earlier.  But 
more interestingly, in the end the centralized proces s turned out to raise the volume of notifications 
and to cover much more areas. 
18. Switzerland is a federal state.  Therefore, the issue of the notification of sub-federal measures 
had to be considered.  Several a lternative arrangements were submitte d to the cantons and the choice 
was left to them to decide on the structure to be devised.  Here again, just like the sectoral federal 
ministries, cantons were reluctant to have to sel ect themselves what to notify, even when equipped 
with a comprehensive explanatory note.  The prefer ence expressed by the Swiss cantons was to let the 
services team periodically send them a request, on the basis of which they would then simply submit 
all legislative cantonal acts adopted over the lapsed pe riod, irrespective of their content.  It was left up 
to the services team to select which acts to notify and to fill in the forms. 
19. The above illustrates some of the options that  may be followed to structure the flow of 
information between regulators and the coordinating en tity.  Again, there is no golden rule.  But what 
is certain is that the notification requirements can hardly be met without internally defining a clear 
flow of information, including a precise divisi on of responsibilities between the sectoral authorities 
and the coordinating entity.  To a certain extent , trial and error may be an inevitable part of 
establishing and improving internal procedures.  S/C/W/297 
 Page 5 
 
 
  20. Focussing initially on few sectors, such as financial services, telecommunication services or 
immigration (Mode 4), could be a method for devi sing appropriate procedures that may then be 
extended to the entire national administration. 
21. Switzerland concluded only a very limited numbe r of recognition agreements relevant for 
sub-paragraph (b) of Article VII:4,  as they ar e confined to the EC and EFTA area. In cases where 
recognition is just a part of comprehensive agreem ents covered by Article V, the internal procedure 
would be driven by that Article.  That was the case for  amendment to the EFTA Convention.4 In 
cases where mutual recognition was based  on specific bilateral agreements,5 the situation is more 
difficult but normally the services team would be involved in or at least informed of the negotiating process, nevertheless to date Switzerland did not notify ex ante .  Another critical aspect of notifying 
agreements under sub-paragraph (b) is to coordinate the notification process among parties to such 
agreement. Most Swiss notifications under Article VII relate to sub-paragraph (c), i.e. to autonomous 
recognition measures based on regulati ons by federal or cantonal authorities.  The internal notification 
process would be the same as for notif ying measures relevant to Article III.
6  As the competence for 
recognition lies within governmental authorities solely , notification can be organized without having 
to involve professional bodies, which facilitates the notification process. 
22. Switzerland has no experience regarding notif ication under other GATS provisions because 
no measures have been introduced under Articles XII: 4 (Restrictions to Safeguard the Balance of  
Payments) or XIV bis (Security Exemptions). 
V. CONCLUSIONS AND PROPOSALS 
23. There may be scope to improve the manner th e notification obligations under the GATS are 
implemented. Since the notification process involves many actors, there are as many points where 
possible improvements may be examined or realized . By way of illustration, some ideas are listed 
below.  
24. To start with, the form used could be reviewed  by the WTO Secretariat with the objective of 
making it more user-friendly, modern and efficient.7 
25. The forms could be made available from th e WTO website and could be downloaded. 
26. One additional step would be to permit Member s to complete – and register – the forms 
directly on-line.  Such type of on-line notifica tion would drastically reduce administrative operations 
and delays. 
27. It seems that there is no precise understanding as to what exactly shall be notified, most 
particularly regarding the exact meaning of the sentence “significantly affect trade in services”. 
Members may consider mandating the WTO Secretaria t with producing an informal note containing 
an illustrative (non exhaustive) list of typical meas ures “which significantly affect trade in services”, 
which are subject to notification.  Such a list coul d help national services teams instruct their sectoral 
regulators and sub-federal entities. 
28. The WTO Secretariat has recently been mandated to produce a statistical account of the 
notifications made over the past years.  Such an  account could, for example, indicate on an annual 
basis the total number of notifications made a nd the total number of Members that made those 
notifications.  On the basis of such statistical account, Members could consider whether there is a 
                                                      
4 See S/C/N/207, notified under Article V only. 
5 See S/C/N/31, S/C/ N/33 and S/C/N/75. 
6 See S/C/N/32, S/C/N/173 to 178, and S/C/N/385 to 387. 
7 Form attached to document S/L/5 of 4 April 1995. S/C/W/297 
Page 6  
 
  deficit in notifications.  Obviously the benefit of th e statistical account would be enhanced if it could 
be repeated annually in the future  so as to permit continuous monitoring.  The objective would be to 
trace the pace of improvement of the notification prac tice by Members.  In addition, such monitoring 
document could be one reference to contin ue discussions among Members concerning the 
implementation of the notification requirements. 
29. The absence of notification may either indicat e that the notification requirement is not 
implemented or that there was actually nothing to  notify.  These are very different situations. 
However, each Member should be in a position to k now its situation in this respect.  An additional 
element could thus be integrated in the notifi cation mechanism requesting Members to confirm, e.g. 
on an annual basis, whether they have notified all what they consider they had to notify. 
30. Members could resort to the possibility (not a requirement) to notify measures of other 
Members that “affect the operation of the Agreem ent” (whatever that means), as provided for in 
Article III:5, which has never been done to date. 
31. Some Members may still be facing difficulties to organize a well functioning internal 
notification process.  It may be helpful if Members could, on an informal basis, have opportunities to 
exchange experience as to the difficu lties they are facing, or have been facing, and as to the best 
means to solve them.  Such exch ange could be done in the context of the Council for Trade in 
Services. 
32. The Council for Trade in Services could reflect on the situation regarding sectoral services 
agreements not covered by Article V, in resp ect of which no notification requirement exist. 
33. Many Members have an internet site dedicated to their GATS policy. Such Members may 
consider adding to their GATS internet page a secti on containing all their not ifications.  This would 
definitely enhance the transparency impact of th e GATS notification process and would be of interest 
for the public. 
__________