WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG220/4/Rev.1 
7 May 2010 
 (10-2622) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements Original:   English 
  
 
ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION TO 27 MEMBER STATES 
(GOODS AND SERVICES) 
 
Questions and Replies
 
 
Revision  
   The following communication, dated 27 April 2010,  is being circulated at the request of the 
delegation of the European Union. 
 
 This document reproduces the questions addressed to the Parties and the responses submitted.  
_______________ 
 Questions from the Delegation of Argentina
 
 
1. Paragraph 59 of the Secretariat Report states that, as a result of the enlargement of the 
European Communities (EC), Romania today has non- ad valorem  tariffs and Bulgaria has 
increased the number of such tariffs.  Ro mania currently has 985 tariff lines subject to 
non- ad valorem  duties and Bulgaria increased to 601 its non- ad valorem  lines.  Consequently, 
according to the EC 2007 tariff, the number of non- ad valorem  lines has increased to more than 
10% of the total in both Bulgaria and Romania.  The Secretariat Report observes that this implies a "loss of transparency". 
 With regard to the above-mentioned Report, it should be noted that most of the 
non- ad valorem  tariff lines under the EC's Common External Tariff (CET) pertain to 
agricultural products (the first four sections of the Harmonized System, totalling 926 lines, 
i.e. 94% of total non- ad valorem  duties).  In addition to the loss of transparency referred to in 
the Report, mention could be made of another type of distortion in these markets, including for example subsidization programmes and tariff quotas.  The loss of transparency would appear to 
be greater in the case of Romania, which had no non- ad valorem  duties prior to the 
enlargement. 
 
 Could the EC provide information for a relevant period (e.g. 2006-2008) on developments in Bulgarian and Romanian trade regarding tariff lines that were not subject to non- ad valorem  duties prior to enlargement? 
 
 The EU has not increased its number of non- ad valorem  tariffs after the new Members' 
accession.  The EU tariffs are bound.  Countries acceding to the EU (which is a customs union) have 
to accept the common tariff following Article XXIV § 8 a) ii) of the GATT rules.  There is no 
common understanding in the WTO on the fact that  specific tariffs are less transparent than 
ad-valorem  tariffs.  It is important to note that several Members (notably EU, Switzerland, Norway, 
and Japan) consider that specific duties are more transparent than ad valorem  duties.  Furthermore, 
Argentina supports the idea of applying specific duties or ad valorem  equivalents whichever is lower. WT/REG220/4/Rev.1 
Page 2  
 
   It is also recalled that Article XXIV.5 (a) of GATT 1994 specifies that "... the duties and other 
regulations of commerce imposed at the institution of any such union or interim agreement in respect 
of trade with contracting parties not parties to such union or agreement shall not on the whole be 
higher or more restrictive than th e general incidence of the duties and regulations of commerce 
applicable in the constituent territories prior to the formation of such union or the adoption of such 
interim agreement,...".   The proportion of ad-valorem  to non- ad valorem  tariffs as such is not relevant 
for the fulfilment of this requirement. 
 
2. Paragraph 65 of the Secretariat Report stat es that:  "Because of the high number of 
non- ad valorem  tariff rates in the EC tariff (985 lines or  over 10% of total lines), and because of 
the change in HS nomenclature that occurred in  2007, it was not possible to ascertain for which 
tariffs, if any, the rate has increased as a result of enlargement." 
 Could the EC indicate whether any tariff ra tes have increased as a result of enlargement 
and, if so, which ones?  
 EU27 enlargement is largely positive to the WT O Members in terms of lower duties payable: 
the overall credits based on bound rates amount to  €833.8 million, whereas the overall debits amount 
to €126.7 million.  When it comes to duty increases on specific tariff lines, one can in particular note 
sugar, for which, however, transitional measures were taken as from the enlargement on 1 January 
2007.  These transitional measures have now been  replaced by the outcome of Article XXIV.6 
compensation negotiations.  For any increases in the duties the EU is engaged in Article XXIV.6 
negotiations on compensatory adjustments.  The re sult of these negotiations will be communicated in 
due course.  
 
3. Paragraph 72 of the Secretariat Report indicates that regulatory changes may have 
occurred in respect of the rules applied in practi ce to Bulgarian or Romanian imports of non-
agricultural products from most European a nd Mediterranean third countries, and provides 
the following example: 
 " ... while Romania had not notified UNCTAD of any Generalized System of 
Preferences (GSP) Scheme, Bulgaria's GSP scheme, based on regional value, differed from the EC GSP scheme."  
 Could the EC indicate whether there have  been changes in the regulations governing 
imports of non-agricultural products from Ro mania and Bulgaria as a result of accession? 
 
 Both Bulgaria and Romania are applying the EU's Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) 
as members of the EU.  It should be noted that they cannot have another individual GSP scheme.  
 4. Extension of anti-dumping measures a nd countervailing duties (paragraph 85 of the 
Secretariat Report), safeguards and special sa feguards under Article 5 of the Agreement on 
Agriculture (paragraph 81 of the Secretariat Report). 
 Could the EC provide information for a rel evant period (e.g. 2006-2008) on trends in 
Bulgarian and Romanian trade with regard to the tariff lines affected by anti-dumping 
measures in force in the EC prior to enlargement? 
 
 The EU did not monitor the requested trade fl ows of Bulgaria and Romania prior to accession 
and is therefore not in the position to provide info rmation on trends in trade with regard to the 
indicated period.  
   WT/REG220/4/Rev.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  5. In particular, with regard to special safeguard measures (SSGs) on agricultural 
products applied in accordance with Article 5 of the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, the Report notes in paragraph 81 that Romania and Bulgaria had not previously made use of the 
SSG mechanism.  However, it is not clear whethe r they have notified the possibility of having 
recourse to SSGs. 
 Without prejudice to the provisions of Article 5.9 of the Agreement on Agriculture, 
  (a) Could the EC identify the Bulgarian and Romanian tariff lines that were not 
subject to SSGs in their schedules of concessions and which have become subject thereto following enlargement (1 January 2007)? 
  Bulgaria did not include any tariff lines in its  Uruguay Round (UR) schedule which could be 
subject to SSGs. Romania did include in its UR schedule a number of tariff lines which could be subject to SSGs;  this schedule is publicly ava ilable on the WTO website.  Both Bulgaria's and 
Romania's WTO schedules were withdrawn upon acce ssion to the EU on 1 January 2007.  The EC12 
schedule (publicly available on the WTO website) shows the tariff lines for which SSGs can be 
applied.  No modification has been made from th e EC12 schedule to the schedule applied today with 
regard to the scope of tariff lines subject to SSGs. 
 
 (b) Could the EC indicate whether SSGs have been eliminated from the tariff lines 
in the Romanian and Bulgarian schedules of concessions that were not included 
in Schedule CXL of EC25? 
 
 Please refer to answer (a) above.  
 
 (c) Could the EC identify the Community  regulations governing the application of 
SSGs? 
 
 Please refer to the following documents relevant for the tariff lines that have been subject to 
SSGs in the marketing year 2007/2008: 
 
 - Rules for implementing the system of additional import duties and fixing additional 
import duties in the poultry meat and eggs sectors are laid down in Commission 
Regulations 1484/95, 2771/75, 2777/75 and 2783/75.   
  - An additional import duty may be imposed  in the sugar and molasses sectors if the 
import prices for the above-mentioned produc ts fall below the trigger prices, which 
have been notified to the WTO (G/AG/N/EEC /2).  Implementing rules in the sugar 
and molasses sectors are laid down in Commission Regulation 951/2006. 
 
 - The volume-based special safeguard acti on has not been invoked in 2007/2008.  
However, the system has been made opera tional for some products in the fruit and 
vegetables sector (Commission Regula tions 1555/96 and 1580/2007).   
 
 For marketing years prior to 2007/2008, see also EC notifications to the Committee on 
Agriculture.  
 
   WT/REG220/4/Rev.1 
Page 4  
 
  6. Paragraph 97 of the Secretariat Report states that the Act of Accession contains 
sector-specific provisions on the steel industry in Romania.  Section B of Annex VII and Appendix A of that Annex contain provisions on State aid for restructuring specified Romanian steel companies. 
 Could the EC provide more details on the production characteristics of the companies 
receiving subsidies? 
 
 Please note the following information regardin g the above-referred Romanian steel 
companies:  
 
- Ispat Sidex Galati (now ArcelorMittal Galati) :  Integrated steel mill producing hot 
 rolled and cold rolled products, galv anising line, billets and pipes.   
 - Siderurgica Hunedoara ( now ArcelorMittal Hunedoara) : Heavy profiles, 
 medium & light profiles, wire rod and billets for pipes.   
- COS Targoviste (now Mechel Targoviste ):  Heavy sections, medium and light 
 sections, reinforcing bars, draw n bars and heavy forgings.  
 
- IS  Campia Turzii (now Mechel Campia Turzii) :  Reinforcing bars, medium and light 
sections, wire rods, and other "non-ecsc" steel products.  
 
- CS Resita (now CS TMK Resita) : Blooms, billets for tubes and heavy sections.  
 
 - Donasid (Siderca) Calarasi (now Tenaris Donasid):   Blooms and billets.  
 
7. Paragraph 94 of the Secretariat Report states that "Bulgaria and Romania have 
essentially applied all the agricultural acquis, including the Common commercial policy, from 
the first day of accession, as there was no transition  period specified for agricultural products."  
 Could the EC specify the content of the pr ovisions of the Act of Accession of Bulgaria 
and Romania under which they are granted benefits in respect of agricultural products?  In particular, could the EC specify what agricul tural aid programmes are stipulated for both 
countries? 
 
 The benefits granted to Romania and Bulgar ia with regard to agricultural products are 
specified in the Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania 
and the adjustments to the treaties on which the Euro pean Union is founded, which is attached to the 
Treaty of accession of Romania and Bulgaria.  The latte r was published in the Official Journal of the 
European Union (L 157, 21.05.2005).  
 
 Overall, Romania and Bulgaria benefit from the same EU support measures (market measures, direct payments and rural development measures) as the rest of EU Member States with some transitional arrangement.  Direct payments ar e phased in during the 10-year transitional period, 
starting at a 25% level in 2007 and reaching 100% in 2016.  Support in Rural Development was 
phased in during a 3-year transitional period starti ng with 60% in 2007 and reaching 100% in 2009. 
 
    WT/REG220/4/Rev.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  8. Paragraph 95 of the Secretariat Report refers to a number of adjustment programmes 
which have benefited the agricultural and rura l sector since 2000.  For example, mention is 
made of "the Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development (SAPARD).  SAPARD funded support to the structural adjustment of Bulgarian and Romanian agriculture and rural development, and helped the two countries to implement the 
acquis communautaire concerning the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and related 
matters." 
 Could the EC explain the nature of the SAPARD programme, what amounts are 
involved, how it operates and what multilateral rule its application is based on?  
 The policy objective and/or purpose of SAPARD  is to establish a framework for Community 
support for sustainable agriculture and sustainable rural development for the pre-accession period for 
the eight new Member States (Czech Republic, Estoni a, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, 
Slovenia) which joined the European Union on 1
 May 2004, for Bulgaria and Romania, which joined 
on 1 January 2007 and for Candidate Country Croatia .  The legal basis for SAPARD is the Council 
Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 of 21 June 1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures 
for agriculture and rural development in the appli cant countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the 
pre-accession period. 
 
 The aid is co-financed by the European Commi ssion together with the SAPARD beneficiary 
countries and implemented th rough multi-annual operational programmes approved by the 
Commission based on the aims of the SAPARD instrument.  By means of decentralised management 
the implementation of the programmes in terms of  selection, approval, c ontrols and financial 
execution of the individual projects, is delegated to  the SAPARD beneficiary countries.  Aid to final 
beneficiaries is normally paid in the form of gran ts.  SAPARD covers the period 2000 to 2006.  For 
the programmes of the eight new Member States annual commitments were made for the years 2000 
to 2003.  Annual commitments for the programmes of  Bulgaria and Romania were made for the years 
2000 to 2006.  Croatia had a single commitment for th e year 2006.  No new commitments were made 
after 2006.  The programmes of the eight new Member States were closed by means of payment of the final balance of the aid made in the years 2006 to 2008.  The final payment applications for the programmes of Bulgaria, Romania and Croa tia were due before the end of 2009. 
 
Expenditure for pre-accession in EU25/27 countries (million €) 
Financial instrument 2006 2007 2008 
Sapard 214 285 145 
 
 The multilateral disciplines ruling the expe nditure under SAPARD are domestic support 
commitments of the EC which resulted from the UR .  The expenditure under SAPARD is accounted 
for by those WTO Members who receive such Commun ity funding.  They do not necessarily need to 
be EU members.  
 9. Paragraph 99 of the Secretariat Report refe rs to the extension to Bulgaria and Romania 
of the EC25 quotas on imports of textile and clot hing products from certain countries, some of 
which are WTO Members.  Article XXIV:8(a)(i) stat es that such an extension is possible "where 
necessary". 
 Could the EC explain the reasons for the extension to Bulgaria and Romania of the 
above-mentioned quotas?   WT/REG220/4/Rev.1 
Page 6  
 
   By acceding to the European Union, Bulgaria and Romania took over the EU acquis including 
all relevant provisions of EU trade policy.  The Euro pean Textiles and Clothing regime is part of this 
EU acquis for trade policy.  The EU would like to  point out that it does not maintain textiles quotas 
for WTO members.  The quotas referred to in the qu estion, are quotas maintained for certain Textile 
and Clothing products originating in North Korea and Belarus.  
 
 The legal basis is, on the one hand, as far as b ilateral agreements are concerned, the European 
Council Regulation 3030/93 on common rules for impor ts of certain textile products from third 
countries.  On the other hand, autonomous measure s are based on the European Council Regulation 
517/94 on common rules for imports of certain te xtile products from third countries not covered by 
bilateral agreements. 
 
Questions from the Delegation of Brazil  
 
10. Paragraph 97.  Please clarify sector-specific provisions on the restructuring of steel 
industries in Romania, contained in the Act of Accession.  Did these grants and payments cease 
on 31 December 2008, the end of the restructuring period mentioned in this paragraph?  What 
was the nature of this State aid for restructuring this sector? 
 There were no further grants or payments to the Romanian steel producers after 
31 December 2008.  Rather, all aid grants and paym ents occurred in the period 1993 to 2004.  The 
bulk of the restructuring aid was linked to existing debts and was granted in the form of debt for 
equity swaps, debt write-offs and payment deferrals.  To a very limite d degree, aid was also granted in 
the form of direct grants, loans at preferential inte rest rates, payment exemptions (with ceilings for a 
maximum amount) and guarantees.  Annex VII lays down the ceilings of maximum aid which can be 
granted for each of the six beneficiaries.  The total amount of aid granted was ROL 49,985 billion, which corresponded to approximately €1.3 billion in 2003. 
 
 About 25 other Romanian steel producers were not listed in the National Restructuring Programme and were therefore subject to the strict prohibition of restructuring and investment State 
aid. Before accession and in cooperation with the Commission, Romania recovered almost all 
incompatible aid granted to these non-beneficiaries.  One case could not be clarified before accession 
and is currently under assessment by the European Commission.  
11. Paragraph 139.  Please explain and deta il which were the Romanian and Bulgarian 
rules for government procurement before it acceded to EC/GPA, especially concerning 
thresholds, type of public purchaser, scope of pro ducts and of contracts subject to the directives 
in force by that time. 
 For Bulgaria, the alignment to the acquis co mmunitaire began with the Public Procurement 
Law (SG issue 56/1999), and achieved throug h a new Public Procurement Law and its 
successive amendments (SG No. 28/06.04.2004, SG No. 53/22.06.2004, SG No. 31/8.04.2005, 
SG No. 34/19.04.2005, SG No. 105/29.12.2005, SG No. 18/28.02.2006, SG No 33/21.04.2006, 
SG No 37/05.05.2006) .  Thresholds are found in Art.14 for application of the 
Public Procurement Law and Art.45 (a) for the notifi cation to the OJEU. The scope ratione materiae is 
found under Art.3 and scope ratione personae is  found under Articles 7 to 7e.  Further 
information can be found on the we bsite of the Bulgarian authorities: 
http://rop3-app1.aop.bg:7778/por tal/page?_pageid=1 73,1106253&_dad=porta l&_schema=PORTAL
 
    WT/REG220/4/Rev.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
   For Romania, alignment to the acquis communitaire began through Act on public 
procurement (Ordinance 60/2001), Law on conces sions (Law 219/1998), Act on Public-Private 
Partnerships (Ordinance 16/2002) and Regulati on on e-procurement (Ordinance 20/2002).  The final 
stage of alignment was achieved through the Law regarding the award of the public procurement 
contracts, public works concession contracts and services concession contracts (Emergency Ordinance 
34/2006, entered into force the 30t h of June 2006).  Thresholds are found in Art.124 for application of 
the public procurement legislation and Art.57 (a) for the notification to the OJEU.  The scope ratione 
materiae is found under Art.3 to 6 and scope ratione  personae is found under Articles 8.  Further 
information can be found in the webs ite of the Romanian authorities: 
http://www.anrmap.ro/index.php?page=legislatie  
 
12. Part III, item B (general).  In spite of the overall decrease in tariffs applied and in tariff 
bindings, EC-25 countries will be given a duty-f ree quota-free access, in Romania and Bulgaria, 
for all products very briefly.  Please comment on  expected trade diversion from importations of 
Romania and Bulgaria coming from third countries to importations originating in EC-25 
countries - particularly for sugar, meat, tobacco,  ores, slag and ash, waste from the food 
industries, animal feed, and electrical machinery. 
 It is wrong to say that "EC25 countries will be given a duty-free quota-free access in Romania 
and Bulgaria".   The EU is a customs union which means th at there are no tariffs within the EU and 
the same Common External Tariff is applied by all EU members.  It is important to note that before a 
country accedes to the EU, a comp rehensive integration process take places when candidate countries 
take part in EU pre-accession support programmes.   Therefore the economic ties are already strongly 
in place at the moment of accession.  
 
 EU27 enlargement is largely positive to the WT O Members in terms of lower duties payable: 
the overall credits based on bound rates amount to  €833.8 million, whereas the overall debits amount 
to €126.7 million.  When it comes to duty increases on specific tariff lines, one can in particular note 
sugar, for which, however, transitional measures were taken as from the enlargement on 1 January 
2007.  These transitional measures have now been  replaced by the outcome of Article XXIV.6 
compensation negotiations.  For any increases in th e duties the EC is engaged in Article XXIV.6 
negotiations on compensatory adjustments.  The re sult of these negotiations will be communicated in 
due course  
 13. As regards the negotiations in services under the Article XXI of GATS, Brazil would 
like to reaffirm the importance that the EC concl udes these negotiations in the short-run.  In 
that sense, the Brazilian delegation asks the EC to comment if the European Court of Justice 
has already responded to the consultation submitte d about the procedures of ratification of the 
agreements negotiated under Article XXI of GATS and, if not, when would that be expected to 
take place. 
 The EU would like to reassure that it full y understands the importance of the Article XXI 
procedure and it would like thus to finalise th e negotiation process as soon as possible.  The EU 
would like to reiterate that it will systematical ly provide all the necessary clarification and 
information to the affected Members regarding the internal procedure.  
 
 The Commission would like to confirm that the opinion of the European Court of Justice has 
been given (please bear in mind that it relates to th e EU-25 consolidation) and in the Court's view, the 
conclusion of the agreements with the affected me mbers, when mixed competence of the EU and the 
Member States is involved, falls under the national ratification procedure. 
  WT/REG220/4/Rev.1 
Page 8  
 
  14. Based on the information provided in paragraph 35, the two new member states of the 
European Community (EC) - Bulgaria and Romani a - would be subject to the EC Schedule as 
of 1st January 2007. Therefore, the EC withdrew  the tariff concessions in Schedule CXXXIX of 
Bulgaria and LXIX of Romania.  This b een the case, under GATT 1994, Article XXVIII, 
members holding initial negotiation rights, princi pal suppliers or with substantial interest may 
enter into negotiation for compensation.  Th erefore, which Schedules have specifically been 
modified? 
 As new Members of the EU27, Bulgaria and Romania are subject to the Schedule of the 
European Communities.  Any proposed modifications  or compensatory adjustments to the schedule of 
the European Communities following negotiations on Articles XXIV.6 and XXVIII of GATT will be 
communicated to the WTO Members in due course. 
 
15. Paragraphs 14 and 15 states that the Europe an Community of the 25 (EC25) is the 
World’s leading service trader, while trade in co mmercial services is smaller in Bulgaria and 
even more so in Romania. Additionally, paragrap hs 25 and 28 points out that: (i) Foreign Direct 
Investment (FDI) stocks in Bulgaria and in Roma nia have more than tripled, mostly originated 
in EC25 Member States; (ii) the largest stocks of  FDI in Bulgaria have mainly been in services, 
notably transport, telecommunications, banking a nd wholesale trade, and that, in Romania, the 
largest services sectors in terms of FDI were banking and telecommunications. Based on that 
information, is it correct to assume that the growing stocks of FDI in the two new member states is related to the establishment of affiliates (mode 3 - commercial presence) of companies 
originally from the EC25?  Is this related to any changes in specific commitments of Bulgaria 
and Romania under GATS? 
 Indeed, it is correct to assume that the growing stocks of FDI in the two new Member States 
are related to the establishment of affiliates or local  subsidiarities of EU25 undertakings.  However, 
this is likely connected to the accession process and in tegration of both countries' economies into the 
internal market.  Please note that the GATS commitments of Bulgaria and Romania have not been 
modified as a consequence of their accession to the EU and that they will only be modified once the 
EU27 consolidation package is agreed with the affe cted Members and subseque ntly ratified by the EU 
in accordance with its internal decision making process.  
 
16. Paragraph 72 states that Romania had no t notified UNCTAD of any Generalized 
System of Preference (GSP) Scheme, and that Bu lgaria’s GSP Scheme, ba sed on regional value, 
differed from the one applied by the European  Community. Furthermore, the Act of Accession 
does not contain any provision on rules of orig in as such. Hence, will Romania and Bulgaria 
meet the European Community criteria on GSP?  
 Is it possible to apply EC's preferential rul es of origin in exports to Bulgaria under the 
European Generalized System of Preferences? 
 
 As regards the first question, we would like to  confirm that both Bulgaria and Romania fully 
apply the EU's Generalized System of Preferences (GSP) as members of the EU.    As regards the second question, please note that th e rules of origin applicable to exports to 
Romania and Bulgaria under the European Generalized  System of Preferences are the rules contained 
in Commission Regulation (EC) 2454/93.  
   
  WT/REG220/4/Rev.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  17. Neither the WTO Secretariat document, or the Act of Accession, mention if the two new 
Member states will fully comply with the REAC H regulation, which has entered into force in 
the EC25. Is it correctly to assume that Bul garia and Romania will follow the same steps 
towards REACH compliance until 2015, or will they be granted an extended derogation transition period? 
 Following the accession of Romania and Bulgaria to the EU on 1 January 2007, the 
REACH Regulation entered into force in all EU27 Memb er states on 1 June 2007.  From that point of 
time, it is also directly applicable in Bulgaria and Romania.  As no transitional provisions for these 
two Member states are foreseen in their accession trea ties they have to follow the same steps towards 
REACH compliance like all other EC 25 Member states. 
 
 With regard to implementation, Member st ates are obliged under REACH to maintain a 
system of official controls and other activities as appropriate to the circumstances, lay down provisions on penalties applicable for infringements of this Regulation and report to the Commission 
on implementation.  The first report shall be submitted by 1 June 2010. 
 Almost all Member states including Bulgaria and Romania have notified the Commission 
with their national penalties for REACH infringemen ts.  Furthermore Member States have established 
their national Competent Authorities for REACH Regulation and are participating in the work of the European Chemicals Agency and its bodies.  
Questions from the Delegation of China
 
Trade Environment  
 
18. Paragraph 2 notes that Bulgaria had the lowest GDP per capita among EC Member 
States.  However, according to Table I. 1, Bulgaria’s GDP per capita in 2005 is €8,700, €600 
higher than Romania. Could the EC please clarif y which country had the lowest GDP per capita 
among EC Members States? 
 
 Table I.1 indicates that, according to 2005 fi gures, the GDP per capita of Bulgaria 
and Romania were €8,700 and €8,100, respectively.  Therefore, the lowest GDP per capita in 2005 
was recorded in Romania.  
 
 According to latest figures available in Eu rostat ("Europe in figures- Eurostat yearbook 
2009"), the GDP per capita in terms of purchasing power standards (PPS) in 2007 was of €10,100 for 
Romania and €9,500 for Bulgaria.  
Import liberalization towards third parties  
 
19. We are encouraged by the fact that substa ntial import liberalization has resulted from 
enlargement, mainly due to the increase of nu mber of duty-free lines. Nevertheless, we also 
noted that after enlargement, zero non- ad valorem tariff lines of Romania and 
381 non- ad valorem  tariff lines of Bulgaria has increased to 985 in the EC 2007 tariff, especially 
for live animals and products, and the prepared  food sector.  Considering there is a common 
understanding in the WTO that specifi c tariff is less transparent than ad-valorem  tariff, how 
could EC fulfil the requirement of Article 24. 5 (a) of GATT 1994 by increasing the number of 
non- ad valorem  tariff after the new Members’ accession? 
 
  
 WT/REG220/4/Rev.1 
Page 10  
 
   The EU has not increased its number of non- ad valorem tariffs after the new Members' 
accession.  The EU tariffs are bound.  Countries acceding to the EU (which is a customs union) have 
to accept the common tariff following Article XXIV § 8 a) ii) of the GATT rules.  There is no 
common understanding in the WTO on the fact that  specific tariffs are less transparent than 
ad valorem  tariffs.  It is important to note that several Members (notably EU, Switzerland, Norway, 
Japan) consider that specific du ties are more transparent than ad valorem  duties.   
 
 It is also recalled that Article XIV.5 (a) of GATT 1994 specifies that "... the duties and other 
regulations of commerce imposed at the institution of any such union or interim agreement in respect 
of trade with contracting parties not parties to such union or agreement shall not on the whole be 
higher or more restrictive than th e general incidence of the duties and regulations of commerce 
applicable in the constituent territories prior to the formation of such union or the adoption of such 
interim agreement,...".   The proportion of ad valorem  to non- ad valorem  tariffs as such is not relevant 
for the fulfilment of this requirement.  Anti-dumping and countervailing duty measures
 
 20. Paragraph 85 indicates that the common EC framework for anti-dumping and 
countervailing measures on imports from third countries applies since 1 January 2007 to the 
NMS2, in which 20 measures were against Chinese products.  
 Could the EC please clarify which specific provisions of the Anti-dumping Agreement 
and GATT Article XXIV it relies on, to justify the automatic extension of anti-dumping 
measures to the new Member States? Did EC  provide any opportunity to review the 
circumstance which could lead to  the non-automatic extension? 
 
 Like in previous enlargements, as of 1 January  2007 all trade defence measures that were in 
the EU25 are automatically applied also to the new Member States (Bulgaria and Romania) – i.e. all 
imports into the enlarged EU27 are subject to theses measures.  On the same date, all trade defence 
measures that were applied individually by the acceding countries before their accession to the EU 
automatically lapsed. 
 
 This automatic application is not specifi cally addressed in the GATT 1994 or in the 
WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.  However, from an anti-dumping perspective, enlargement by itself 
does not automatically vary the dumping, subsidy and injury parameters, which form the basis of 
every trade defence measure.  In the vast major ity of cases, if not in all, imports of the product 
concerned into the new EU Member States were small compared to those into the EU25 and the 
industrial output of the new Member States was neglig ible.  This suggested that the enlargement was 
unlikely to have an impact on the economic data  justifying the imposition of measures and it would 
have therefore been legally unreasonable and superflu ous to open automatically reviews of all existing 
trade defence measures.  
 
 Moreover, the EU took a very prudent appro ach and was ready to open reviews for those 
cases where interested parties requ ested such reviews and submitted evidence that the measures would 
have been significantly different if they had b een based on information including the new Member 
States.  Accordingly, exporting producers in third countries were encouraged to submit such requests 
for enlargement-related interim reviews.  A notice containing such an invitation was published in the 
EU's Official Journal on 7.12.2006 (OJ C 297/12)    
  WT/REG220/4/Rev.1 
 Page 11 
 
 
  Changes in export measures  
 
21. According to paragraph 91, Bulgaria and Romania did not provide export subsidies 
before accession. However, thei r exporters are eligible for EC export refunds since accession. 
Could the EC please explain what’s the impact of the export subsidies on NMS2’s relevant 
industries? Is there any implication for the EC’s  position on the elimination of the export 
subsidies in Doha Agriculture negotiations? 
 The new Members States of the EU27 Bulgaria and Romania are subject to the Schedule of 
the European Communities.  Ther e has been no particular impact of export subsidies on these 
Member States' agricultural export si nce accession.  Overall, the use of export subsidies by the EU has 
been very limited.  The EU remains committed to  phase out all export subsidies on the condition of 
the successful completion of the Doha Round.   
 
Questions from the delegation of Chinese Taipei  
 
Anti-dumping measures  
 22. According to paragraph 85 (page 27) of the Factual Presentation, the EC has applied the 
extension of existing antidumping measures to the two new Members States since 1 January 
2007.  Hence, we have the following questions: 
(a) Did the EC initiate any reviews of these antidumping measures on its own 
initiative before the extension? If so, we would appreciate it very much if EC can 
provide the details. 
 No, we did not initiate any reviews. 
 
(b) If not, did the EC have any other procedures or did it adopt any other measures 
to ensure the extension is consistent with Article 24.5(a) of GATT 1994? 
 Like in previous enlargements, as of 1 January  2007 all trade defence measures that were in 
the EU25 are automatically applied also to the new Member States (Bulgaria and Romania) – i.e. all 
imports into the enlarged EU27 are subject to theses measures.  On the same date, all trade defence 
measures that were applied individually by the acceding countries before their accession to the EU 
automatically lapsed. 
 
 This automatic application is not specifi cally addressed in the GATT 1994 or in the 
WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.  However, from an anti-dumping perspective, enlargement by itself 
does not automatically vary the dumping, subsidy and injury parameters, which form the basis of 
every trade defence measure.  In the vast major ity of cases, if not in all, imports of the product 
concerned into the new EU Member States were small compared to those into the EU25 and the 
industrial output of the new Member States was neglig ible.  This suggested that the enlargement was 
unlikely to have an impact on the economic data  justifying the imposition of measures and it would 
have therefore been legally unreasonable and superflu ous to open automatically reviews of all existing 
trade defence measures.  
 
 Moreover, the EU took a very prudent appro ach and was ready to open reviews for those 
cases where interested parties requ ested such reviews and submitted evidence that the measures would 
have been significantly different if they had b een based on information including the new Member 
States.  Accordingly, exporting producers in third countries were encouraged to submit such requests 
for enlargement-related interim reviews. A notice containing such an invitation was published in the 
EU's Official Journal on 7.12.2006 (OJ C 297/12). WT/REG220/4/Rev.1 
Page 12  
 
  Questions from the delegation of Ukraine
 
23. Paragraph 91:  How did expansion of expo rt subsidies to Bulgaria and Romania 
influence their trade with other trading partners? Did it have any significant positive effect regarding certain subsidized products in  the agriculture of Bulgaria and Romania? 
 There has been no particular impact of expor t subsidies on these Member States' agricultural 
export.  Overall, the use of export subsidies by the EU since then has been very limited. 
 
24. Paragraph 135:  Does it mean that the "existing aid" unlike the “new aid” is not to be 
amended in order to comply fully with the EC competition law? 
 The EU has a solid system of ex ante control of  subsidies, which ensures not only that there is 
total transparency on subsidies granted in the EU, but also that the distortive effects of subsidies that 
are granted are minimized.  Subsidy systems in countries applying for EU membership are subjected to a thorough screening prior to accession. One of the conditions for EU membersh ip is that applicant 
countries bring their subsidy systems in line with EU rules prior
 to the date of accession.  In the 
run-up to accession, the European Commission verifies th e compatibility with EU rules of all subsidy 
schemes that are in existence in the applicant country before the date of accession and that the 
applicant country intends to contin ue to operate after the date of  accession.  Only subsidy measures 
that have been verified by the European Commissi on and that have been found to be in line with 
EU rules are qualified as "existing aid" and can be implemented by the new Member States after the date of accession.  Any subsidy measure that has not  gone through this process must be ended by the 
date of accession.  
 
__________