RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  TCA/M/20 
1 August 2005 
 
 (05-3458) 
Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft  
  
 
MINUTES OF THE MEETING  
HELD ON 10 JUNE 2005 
 
Chairperson:  Mr. Didier Chambovey 
 
1. The Committee on Trade in Civil Aircraft (the  "Committee") held a regular meeting on 
10 June 2005. 
2. The Committee adopted the following agenda: 
A.
 CONSIDERATION  OF THE  STATUS  OF THE  1979  AGREEMENT  ON TRADE  IN 
CIVIL  AIRCRAFT  UNDER  THE  WTO ....................................................................................1  
B. "END-USE"  CUSTOMS  ADMINISTRATION .........................................................................1  
1. Updating information regarding civil/military identification for customs 
purposes ....................................................................................................................... ..............1  
2. Military vs. Non-military Definition........................................................................................2  
C. ENLARGEMENT  OF THE  EU AND  ARTICLE  9 OF THE  AGREEMENT ............................2  
D. DATE  OF NEXT  REGULAR  MEETING ..................................................................................3  
 
 A. CONSIDERATION
 OF THE  STATUS  OF THE  1979  AGREEMENT  ON TRADE  IN CIVIL  
AIRCRAFT  UNDER  THE  WTO 
3. The Chairperson  recalled that in April 1999 he had sent to Signatories a draft protocol 
concerning technical rectifications needed to brin g the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft (the 
"Agreement") into the WTO framewo rk.  Since then, certain Signatories had remained unable to adopt 
this draft protocol but had indicated the utility of co ntinuing to revert to this item in the Committee.  
The Chairperson noted that it appear ed that the situation had not changed since the last meeting of the 
Committee.   
4. The Committee agreed to revert to this matter at its next regular meeting.  
B. "END-USE"  CUSTOMS  ADMINISTRATION 
1. Updating information regarding civil/m ilitary identification for customs purposes 
5. The Chairperson  noted that no new information had been received from Signatories since the 
last regular meeting of the Committee.  TCA/M/20 
Page 2  
 
 2. Military vs. Non-military Definition 
6. The Chairperson
 recalled that Canada had made a proposal concerning the definition of civil 
aircraft for the purposes of the Agreement which w as circulated in document TCA/W/4.  He recalled 
that at the November 2002 meeting of the Committee,  Canada had circulated as a room document a 
revised wording of its proposal and that at the l ast meeting of the Committee, Signatories had agreed 
to revert to this item.  
7. The representative of Canada  reiterated his delegations' w illingness to work with other 
delegations on this issue in case other delegations were  interested in doing so. He further added that if 
there was no interest from other delegations to keep  this item on the agenda, his delegation would not 
insist to revert to this matter at the next mee ting of the Committee. He was of the view that the 
document could always be resubmitted later on ce it would appear that Signatories were again 
interested in discussing this matter.    
8. The Committee took note  of the statements made.   
C. ENLARGEMENT  OF THE  EU AND  ARTICLE  9 OF THE  AGREEMENT 
9. The Chairperson  recalled that at the Committee's meeting of 10 November 2004 the United 
States posed a number of questions to the Europ ean Communities, Poland, Hungary Czech Republic, 
Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta  and the Slovak Republic regarding enlargement of 
the European Union.  He then gave the floor to the representative of the Eu ropean Communities to see 
whether he was able to inform the Committee of his delegation's response to these questions. 
10. The representative of the European Communities  responded to the three questions posed by 
the United States at the last meeting and circul ated in document TCA/W/8. The first question 
requested the European Communities to expand on its statement previously made that the new 
members of the EU "were automatically linked by  the Agreement on Civil Aircraft" in terms of 
Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Civil Aircraft . The representative of th e European Communities 
replied that the EC in its current form is a Si gnatory to the Agreement as Article 9.1.1 of the 
Agreement specified that the Agreement was ope n for acceptance by Signature by the European 
Economic Community, which was the terminology of the day.  He added that the enlargement of the  
European Communities as of 1 May 2004 to a community of 25 member States effectively automatically extended the rights and obligations of the European Communities to cover the new 
territory of the European Union. He thus conclude d that through the enlargement, the ten new member 
States of the European Communities had effec tively become parties to the Agreement. 
11. Answering the second question posed by the Unite d States, the representative of the European 
Communities stated that the obligations of those new members of the European Union that were, 
already prior to the enlargement, Signatories to th e Agreement, did not change in any way.  His 
delegation was of the view that neither the rights nor the obligations of those countries had been changed in any way. 
12. In response to the third question from the Un ited States whether the six new EU member 
States that were not Signatories to the Agreement pr ior to the enlargement of the EU would become 
Signatories to the Agreement in their own right, he st ated that essentially this question did not arise as 
a practical matter because the countries concerned we re effectively covered through the membership 
of the European Communities. 
13. The representative of the United States
 expressed his delegation's appreciation to the 
European Communities for the answers provided and he  hoped that they would also be submitted in 
writing. He further added that the United States we lcomed the participation of any new Members in  TCA/M/20 
 Page 3 
 
 
 this area and explained that his delegation was prim arily interested in the procedural aspects of how 
those new EU member States would be coming into conformity with the requirements of the Agreement. He requested the European Communities to reiterate its reply to the question whether 
there would be any differences with respect to th e application of rights and obligations under the 
Agreement between those EU member States that are Signatories and those EU member States for 
whom there has not been a deposit of an instrume nt of accession pursuant to Article 9.1.3 of the 
Agreement. He explained that his delegation expected  that there would be a uniform approach applied 
to all ten new EU member States, including that all would become Signatories of the Agreement by 
depositing an instrument of accession. His delega tion was interested in knowing whether the new 
member States had acted to ensure the conformity of their laws, regulations and procedures with the 
Agreement as they ensured conformity with othe r aspects of their accessions such as adopting tariff 
provisions since the new EU member States are now part of the EU common external tariff.  He concluded by stating that any further information with  respect to implementation of the obligations of 
the Agreement within the new EU member States would be greatly appreciated. 
14. The representative of th e European Communities
 stated that in light of the detailed nature of 
the additional questions of the United States, his delegation would like to reflect further on these 
questions. The essential point that he made before a nd that he wished to reiterate was that the rights 
and obligations under the Agreement accepted by the European Communities applied effectively 
throughout the territory of the European Communities.  He recalled that this issue also ar ose in the 
context of the previous enlargement of the EU in  1995 with respect to one member State which was 
still not a Signatory to the Agreement. He referred to  this case to make the point that essentially in 
practical terms the problem that the United States wa s pointing to as a potential problem was in fact a 
non-problem. He further added that with regard to the customs tariff, it was well known that the 
European Communities had a common customs tari ff set in a uniform manner for all EU member 
States. He concluded that other matte rs raised by the United States c ould be pursued further bilaterally 
as well.   
15. The Chairperson  concluded that a number of questions which had been put by the United 
States could be discussed bilaterally between the United States and the European Communities. He 
had the feeling however that other Signatories would al so wish to be kept informed of the results of 
such bilateral discussions.  He therefore proposed th at at the next meeting of the Committee, the 
European Communities and the United States would in form the other Signatories of the full answers 
given to the questions posed during possible bilateral discussions.  
16. The Committee took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next 
regular meeting.  
D. DATE  OF NEXT  REGULAR  MEETING 
17. The Chairperson  proposed that the date of the next regular meeting be Wednesday, 9 
November 2005.  
18. The Committee so agreed.  
19. The meeting was adjourned . 
__________