. /.  RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG1/M/5 
7 February 2006 
 
 (06-0499) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Forty-First Session Original:   English 
 
 
 
EXAMINATION OF THE EUROPE AGREEMENT  BETWEEN 
THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND BULGARIA, SERVICES 
 
Note on the Meeting of 23 January 2006  
 
Chairman: Mr. R.. Saborío (Costa Rica) 
 
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/2734. 
2. Under Agenda Item C.II of its 41st Session, the Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
(hereinafter CRTA or the Committee) took up the third round of examination of the services aspects 
of the Europe Agreement between th e European Communities and Bulgaria. 
3. The Chairman  noted that the proceedings of the firs t and second rounds of examination of the 
services aspects of the Europe Agreement betw een the European Communities and Bulgaria 
(hereinafter the Agreement), which had taken place in November 2002 and March 2004, had been 
distributed in documents WT/REG1/M/3 and WT/REG 1/M/4 respectively.  Since then, the Parties 
had provided replies to questions put by delega tions, which had been circulated in documents 
WT/REG1/9 and WT/REG1/10.  Given the advanced st age of the examination, he asked delegations 
wishing to comment or ask further questions on the Agreement to identify the relevant section of the 
Standard Format contained in document WT/REG1/7. 
4. The representative of the United States  asked, under Section I of the Standard Format 
("Background Information on the Agreement"), whet her the Parties could simplify the reply provided 
to a previous question about services trade liberalizati on since the entry into force of the Agreement.  
The response provided gave just a reference to th e EC's website, leading to a large and confusing 
amount of documents.  Therefore, she asked whether the Parties could provide a simple description of 
the changes in the liberalization process that had been undertaken since the Agreement was put into 
force.  The representative of  the European Communities  expressed surprise to hear that it was difficult 
to find the information on those websites since it was her understanding that they contained all the 
information requested.  She asked clarification on  the exact problem encountered.  The representative 
of the United States  explained that, although accessing the doc uments provided in the websites was 
not problematic, to provide the Committee with a large amount of documents did not serve the transparency process; she thus re quested a summary description from the Parties of what the answer 
to their question would be.  The repr esentative of the European Communities
 said that she would 
check with other members of her delegation whethe r providing a webpage was not sufficient and look 
into what could be provided in order to furthe r clarify the answer; she would also see whether her 
delegation could print the information and forward it to  the Secretariat.  It was her understanding that 
this Agreement had been reviewed sufficiently  although the United States was still requesting 
information ten years after the Agreement had been  notified to the WTO.  The representative of the 
United States  said that they continued to ask this questi on because they had not received any answer 
in the past and in her view, simply referring to a webpage, with links to many other documents, did 
not provide them with a succinct, clear description of  the steps that had been taken to liberalize since 
the entry into to force of the Agreement.  She hi ghlighted that the purpose of this Committee was to WT/REG1/M/5 
Page 2  
 
  allow Members to better understand the several aspect s of the agreements, including the steps being 
taken to implement them.  That would be the kind of information she would appreciate and not just a 
reference to the webpages.  The Chairman
 considered that it had been  the rule that whenever a 
delegation was asked to describe some thing, it would deliver a summary of the main points.  He asked 
whether that was what the United States want ed and whether the European Communities had 
provided it or not.  The representative of the United States  replied that she was not asking for a 
subsequent report nor a biennial report.  On the contra ry, this question went back to the first review of 
the Agreement.  She sought to know whether the lib eralization that was scheduled to be phased in had 
actually taken place and, if so, what had been phased in and what had been excluded.  The 
representative of the European Communities  considered that the web pages they had provided 
contained all the relevant information, including a description of all the steps taken and expressed 
again her surprise that this was not the appropriate  way to proceed.  Given that all the relevant 
information was provided in their web pages and al though saving paper could have been useful, she 
would check with her delegation whether they coul d print and circulate the relevant parts of the 
information.  
5. The Chairman  encouraged the delegations of the United States and the European 
Communities to solve the issue bilaterally and pr oposed that, given the remaining open point, the 
Committee would wait feedback from both sides be fore deciding whether there was a need to 
continue the factual examination of the Agreement.  It was so agreed . 
6. The Committee took note  of the comments made. 
__________