RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/C/M/73/Add.1 
16 February 2007 
 
 (07-0629) 
Council for Trade in Services  
  
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 24 JUNE 2004 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
 
Addendum  
 
 
As agreed at the meeting of the Council for Trade in Services held on 26 November 2004 
(S/C/M/75), the statements relating to the modification or renegotiation of specific commitments pursuant to Article XXI of the GATS, which were  contained in an informal document, are now 
circulated as an addendum to the meeting report.
 
 
_______________ 
 
 
Statements Made at the Meeting of the Council for Trade in Services 
on 24 June 2004 Under Items A and E of the Agenda  
 
 
 This document2 contains statements made by Members of the Council for Trade in Services 
under items A (Notifications to the Council Pursua nt to Article V:7 and V:5 of the GATS) and E 
(Other Business) of the agenda contained in WTO/AIR/2342 relating to the modification or 
renegotiation of specific commitments pur suant to Article XXI of the GATS. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
A. NOTIFICATIONS TO THE COUNCIL PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V:7 AND V:5 OF THE 
GATS 
1. The Chairman  further drew the Council's attention to the notification pursuant to Article V:5 
from the European Communities and its Member States, contained in document S/SECRET/8, 
regarding the previous accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden and the recent accession of 10 new 
Member States (Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus , Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, 
Slovenia, and Slovak Republic) to the European Communities.  He said that document S/SECRET/8 
had been distributed only in English at this meeti ng.  The large size of this document had delayed the 
translation work, and the French and Spanish vers ions would be available by 15 July 2004.  The 
Chairman indicated that document S/SECRET/8 w as to notify the European Communities and its 
Member States' intention to modify or withdraw th e specific commitments set out in the list attached 
to this communication.  In accordance with Article V:5, this notification thus initiated the procedure 
set forth in Article XXI.  The procedures for the implementation of Article XXI were contained in 
                                                      
1 This document has been prepared under the Secret ariat's own responsibility and without prejudice to 
the positions of Members and to their rights and obligations under the WTO. 
2  Previously circulated as JOB( 04)/188, dated 20 December 2004.  S/C/M/73/Add.1 
Page 2  
 
  document S/L/80.  It was in accordance with these procedures that this notification had appeared on 
the agenda of this meeting.  These procedures also  required that any Member which considered that 
its interests under the GATS might be affected by the proposed modification or withdrawal was to communicate its claim in writing to the modifying Member and at the same time notify it to all other Members through the Secretariat.  According to pa ragraph 3 of document S/L/80, such claims of 
interest were to be made no later than 45 days afte r the date of circulation by the Secretariat of the 
notification.   
2. The representative of the European Communities
 stated that, as a result of the EC 
enlargement which had taken effect on 1 May 2004, his delegation had made two notifications:  one 
had notified the Council of the Treaty concerning the accession of the 10 new Member States;  the 
other had notified the Council of his delegation's in tention to modify or withdraw some specific 
commitments.  He pointed out that his delegation had made the latter notification on 28 May 2004, 
which had been circulated to the Members of the Council by the Secretariat on 11 June 2004.  He stressed that this notification only concerned modi fication or withdrawal of specific commitments.  
He stated that this communication also notified that the procedure under Article XXI launched in the 
previous year relating to the accession of Austria,  Finland and Sweden had been withdrawn because 
those proposed modifications had been fully in tegrated in document S/SECRET/8 and could be 
handled in one and the same procedure.  He indicated that this notification (S/SECRET/8) had included a list of commitments (20 in total) his dele gation intended to modify or withdraw, and that 
for transparency purposes, a cons olidated schedule had been att ached to the notification.   
3. Noting that the French and Spanish versi ons of document S/SECRET/8 were still being 
processed, the representative of Japan
 inquired which day was to be taken as the starting point of the 
procedures the notification intended to initiate:  11 June 2004 on which the E nglish version had been 
circulated, or the day on which the French and Spanish versions would be available. 
4. Thanking the European Communities for its tw o notifications, the representative of Hong 
Kong, China  sought some clarifications from the European Communities on its notification 
S/SECRET/8.  With respect to the European Comm unities' statement that the previous notification 
S/C/N/231 had been withdrawn because the proposed modification or withdrawal of specific commitments had been incorporated in the late r notification S/SECRET/8, he sought confirmation 
from the European Communities on two points:  (1 ) document S/SECRET/8 served as a notice to the 
Secretariat pursuant to paragraph 19 of document S/L/80 for the modifying Member to withdraw its 
notification under Article XXI:1 and paragraph 1 of document S/L/80, which in this case was 
document S/C/N/231 including S/C/N/231/Corr.1;  (2) as a result of the notice, the process under 
Article XXI initiated by the previous notificati on S/C/N/231 had been aborted, Article XXI and 
document S/L/80 ceased to apply, and the Europ ean Communities and its Member States were 
obligated to maintain their comm itments in conformity with their existing Schedules of specific 
commitments and Part III of the GATS as  required under document S/L/80.   
5. Noting the European Communities' statement that  the consolidated schedule was attached for 
transparency purposes, the representative of Hong Kong, China further sought confirmation from the 
European Communities on two points:  (1) the conso lidated schedule of specific commitments of the 
European Communities and its Member States attached to document S/SECRET/8 had no legal status, and the European Communities and its  Member States would continue to be bound by their existing 
Schedules of specific commitments until all th e relevant requirements and procedures under 
Article XXI and document S/L/80 had been complied with and completed;  (2) the consolidated 
schedule of specific commitments attached to document S/SECRET/8 was not a draft schedule put 
forward for the purpose of certification under paragr aph 20 of document S/L/80  or under paragraph 1 
of document S/L/84.  S/C/M/73/Add.1 
 Page 3 
 
 
  6. The representative of Hong Kong, China noticed that the European Comm unities, in the last 
paragraph of its notification S/SECRET/8, had requ ired Members that might request to enter into 
negotiations under Article XXI to indicate certain issu es “to ensure that the grounds for such requests 
are clearly discernable”.  Considering this was me rely a statement by the European Communities and 
was not part of the notification required pursuant to  Article XXI, he declared that his delegation 
disagreed with this statement.  He pointed out that in accordance with Article XXI:2(a) and 
paragraph 3 of document S/L/80, any Member whic h considered that its interests under the GATS 
might be affected by the proposed modification or withdrawal might submit its claim and request for 
negotiations, and that the modifying Member was to  enter into negotiations with such a Member 
which had identified itself as an affected Member within the meaning of Article XXI.  He stressed 
that there was no other pre-condition or pre-requis ite for entering into negotiations under Article XXI. 
7. Noting that the European Communities’ st atement that its notification S/SECRET/8 
concerned only modification and withdrawal of specific commitments, the representative of Hong 
Kong, China sought confirmation from the EC on the fact that the consolidated list of MFN exemptions attached to document S/SECRET/8 had no legal status and was not part of the process 
under Article XXI, which this notifi cation sought to initiate.  The re presentative of Hong Kong, China 
noticed that it was stated in document S/SECRET/8 that the consolidated list of MFN exemptions of 
the European Communities and its 25 Member States replaced the existing lists of MFN exemptions 
of the European Communities and of those Member  States which had maintained separate lists of 
MFN exemptions.  He also noticed that there was no reference in document S/SECRET/8 as to the legal basis and applicable procedures for such repl acement.  He thus sought clarifications from the 
European Communities on the legal basis and applicable  procedures for the replacement of the lists of 
MFN exemptions and on when such procedures would be initiated. 
8. The representative of Hong Kong, China sai d that his delegation also noted some 
discrepancies between the list of commitments to be modified or withdrawn as set out in the Annex to 
document S/SECRET/8, and the consolidated schedul e attached to this document.  He inquired 
whether there were some typographical errors in document S/SECRET/8.   
9. The representative of Japan
 supported the statement made by Hong Kong, China with regard 
to the last paragraph of document S/SECRET/8. 
10. The representative of Canada  said that his government was car efully examining the European 
Communities’ notification S/SECRET/8 to determine its  potential effect on Canada’s interests.  If it 
was believed that Canada’s interests were affected , his delegation would notify the Secretariat and all 
other Members of their claims of interests.  Tha nking the representative of Hong Kong, China for his 
thorough examination of the European Communities’ notification S/SECRET/8, he also sought clarifications from the European Communities on the inclusion of a consolidated list of MFN exemptions in this notification.    
11. The representative of the United States
 said that her delegation noted the European 
Communities’ notification S/C/N/303 made pursuan t to Article V:7 of the GATS regarding the 
accession of the 10 new Member States.  Her dele gation also noted the European Communities’ 
notification S/SECRET/8 pursuant to Article V:5 of the GATS, which stated the European Communities’ intention to modify or withdraw sp ecific commitments and to which a consolidated 
schedule of specific commitments and a consolidated  list of MFN exemptions were attached.  Her 
delegation noticed that the European Communities'  notification S/SECRET/8 had formally withdrawn 
its previous notification S/C/N/231 regarding the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden and had 
incorporated these countries’ modified schedules in the new consolidated schedule.  Her delegation 
believed that the United States’ interests under the GATS might be affected by the proposed 
modification or withdrawal of specific commitments in the European Communities' notification S/SECRET/8.  Her delegation thus intended to requ est, pursuant to Article XXI:2 and paragraph 3 of S/C/M/73/Add.1 
Page 4  
 
  document S/L/80, that the European Communities ente r into negotiations with a view to reaching an 
agreement on any necessary compensatory adjustment.  In this light, she said her delegation looked 
forward to a response to the question previously ra ised by Japan regarding the starting point of the 
procedure the European Communities' notification S/ SECRET/8 intended to initiate.  With respect to 
the consolidated list of MFN exemptions included in  this notification, she said that her delegation 
believed that pursuant to Article II of the GATS a nd the Annex on Article II (MFN) Exemptions, any 
new MFN exemptions applied for after the entry into  force of the WTO were to be dealt with under 
Article IX:3 of the WTO Agreement.  Noting the qu estions previously raised by Hong Kong, China, 
her delegation believed that Hong Kong, China was seeking important and useful clarifications and 
confirmations on both procedural and substantive aspects of the European Communities' notification 
S/SECRET/8.  Regarding the grounds for the ne gotiation request under Article XXI, her delegation 
also shared Hong Kong, China's concern about anythi ng that would change what had been specified in 
Article XXI and document S/L/80.   Her delegation would send their request to the European 
Communities after the status of the French a nd Spanish versions of document S/SECRET/8 was 
clarified.   
12. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 stated that her delegation shared the views of Hong 
Kong, China regarding the procedural issues a nd the discrepancies in th e European Communities 
notification S/SECRET/8.  She further expressed her delegation’s concern about the last paragraph of 
this notification and the consolidated list of MFN exem ptions attached to it.  In her delegation’s view, 
there was no requirement for affected Members to de monstrate their interests in order to enter into 
negotiations under Article XXI, and in accordance w ith the Annex on Article II (MFN) Exemptions, 
any new MFN exemptions after the entry into force of the WTO were subject to the procedure set out 
in Article IX:3 of the WTO Agreement.   
13. The representative of Colombia  said that her government was analysing in detail the 
European Communities’ notification S/SECRET/8 and would decide whether to participate in the 
negotiations.  Echoing the concern expressed by H ong Kong, China on the last paragraph of this 
notification, she stated that her delegation was of the view that neither Article XXI nor the procedures 
established in document S/L/80 required affected Members to present detailed trade information in 
order to enter into negotiations.  She sought clarifications on this issue from the European Communities.   
14. Regarding the European Communities’ notifi cation S/SECRET/8, the representative of 
Ecuador
 said her delegation wished to see the document translated into other official languages and 
the procedures be clarified.  She said her government  had participated in the negotiations with the 
European Communities regarding the modification or  withdrawal of specific commitments resulting 
from the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden  to the European Communities.  Her delegation 
was concerned about the unilateral interpretati on of Article XXI and document S/L/80 by the 
European Communities and entirely ag reed with the views of Hong Kong, China to this effect.  She 
said the issues arising from the notification in qu estion (S/SECRET/8) were of vital importance for 
both the services negotiations and the GATS itself because of this notification’s nature of precedent.  
Concerned about the consolidated list of MFN exemp tions in this notification, her delegation was of 
the view that Article IX of the WTO Agreement was to be initiated in this regard.  Echoing the view 
of Colombia, her delegation considered that there was no requirement for affected Members to provide any detailed trade information in order to  enter into negotiations.  The representative of 
Ecuador said that her capital was studying the notification (S/SECRET/8) in detail.   
15. The representative of Argentina
 said his capital was waiting for the Spanish version of the 
European Communities' notification S/SECRET/8 in orde r to analyse it in detail.  Sharing most of the 
comments made by Hong Kong, China on this notifica tion, he wished to raise some specific concerns 
of his government.  Noting that this notification had withdrawn the previous notification S/C/N/231, 
he sought confirmation from the European Communities on the fact that the modification or  S/C/M/73/Add.1 
 Page 5 
 
 
  withdrawal of specific commitments proposed in the previous notification S/C/N/231 had not been 
implemented and that the specific commitments of  the three Member States (Austria, Finland and 
Sweden) remained unchanged.  Having taken note of  the European Communities' statement that its 
notification S/SECRET/8 only concerned specific comm itments, he sought clarifications from the 
European Communities on the objective of and legal basis for including a consolidated list of MFN 
exemptions in this notification.  Referring to the l ast paragraph of this notification, he said that his 
delegation was concerned about the inclusion of certain conditions which went beyond the 
requirement established in Article  XXI and document S/L/80.  He sought clarifications from the 
European Communities on whether they would acc ept a negotiation request which did not contain 
information they were asking for.  Finally, he i nquired the exact date on which the period for affected 
Members to present their claims of interests under Article XXI started.   
16. The representative of Australia  stated that his delegation was examining the European 
Communities' notification S/SECRET/8 and would purs ue the procedure under Ar ticle XXI within the 
agreed timeframe if Australia was affected.  His delegation thus wished to know when the clock 
started ticking.   
17. The representative of Switzerland  said that his delegation agreed to most of the comments 
made by other delegations on the European Comm unities' notification S/SECRET/8.  Regarding the 
fact that this notification had withdrawn the prev ious notification S/C/N/231,  his delegations believed 
that the issues dealt with in the negotiations initia ted by the previous notification S/C/N/231 remained 
to be addressed in the negotiations to be initiated by the later notification S/SECRET/8 and that those 
Members that had taken part in the previous pr ocess would also be involved in the forthcoming 
negotiations.  With respect to the last paragraph of the later notification S/SECRET/8, his delegation 
was of the view that neither Article XXI nor doc ument S/L/80 required affected Members to provide 
in their claims of interests the information the Euro pean Communities were asking for.  In this regard, 
the representative of Switzerland recalled that the wording used in both Article XXI:2 and document 
S/L/80 was "may be affected".  His delegation firmly  believed that any change of rules introduced by 
the notification was not acceptable.  It seemed to hi s delegation that there existed two options to solve 
the problem involved.  If the last paragraph of the European Communities' notification S/SECRET/8 
was regarded to have a legal effect upon the affected  Members, this notification would be invalid in 
this paragraph because of its invalid content.  In  this case, Switzerland would request the European 
Communities to submit a new notification which was valid in its entirety.  The second option was to 
attach no legal value to any statement on rules in all the notifications, including notification 
S/SECRET/8.  In this case, any remaining disagr eement on the introduction of rules would be left 
outside the scope of the notification.  Switzerla nd regarded the second option as a more pragmatic one 
and could follow it.  The representative of Switzerla nd stressed that in any event, his government 
could not accept any change of rules and proce dures through notifications  by any Member.   
18. The representative of China  stated that his delegation suppor ted most of the statements made 
by Hong Kong, China on the European Commun ities' notification S/SECRET/8, which had been 
echoed by many other delegations.  He said that to make a thorough study and analysis of the 
consolidated schedule of specific commitments a ttached to this notification would be a time-
consuming process and a burdensome work.  Noti ng that the European Communities requested 
affected Members to provide detailed information in  their claims of interests, his delegation was 
concerned about the difficulties this request might create for other Members, especially for 
developing Members.  His delegation was of the view that specific commitments meant both actual 
market access and potential market access opportun ities, which were to be taken into account in 
determining compensatory adjustment under Article XXI.   
19. The representative of New Zealand  stated that her government was currently assessing the 
European Communities' notification S/SECRET/8 to de termine whether its interests were affected.  
Her delegation shared the concerns outlined by ot her delegations regarding this document.  With S/C/M/73/Add.1 
Page 6  
 
  respect to the last paragraph of this notification,  she stated that her government would not consider 
itself under the obligation to provide detailed information in notifying its claims of interests.   
20. Stating that his delegation shared the concer ns articulated by Hong Kong, China and other 
delegations on the European Co mmunities' notification S/SECRET/8, the representative of India
 
wished to specifically raise two points.  His dele gation believed that the pur ported standard regarding 
claims of interests, which was contained in the l ast paragraph of this notification, went beyond what 
was set out in both Article XXI and document S/L/80.  His delegation disagreed with this formulation.  
In this regard, he echoed the statement made by Sw itzerland that notifications could not change rules 
agreed upon by Members.  With respect to the conso lidated list of MFN exemptions included in this 
notification, his delegation was concerned about th e legal status and applicable procedures for its 
replacement of the existing lists of MFN exemptions.   
21. The representative of Chile  stated that her delegation unde rstood the last paragraph of 
notification S/SECRET/8 was a mere suggestion by the European Communities, which sought to ensure negotiations and would in no way im pede any Member from claiming interests. 
22. The representative of Korea
 stated that her delegation shared the concerns expressed by other 
delegations regarding the ambiguities and uncertain ties of notification S/SECRET/8.  Her delegation 
particularly wished to know on which day the pe riod for claims of interests started and which 
procedures were to apply for the modification of MFN exemptions.   
23. The representative of Uruguay  said that her delegation had taken note of the European 
Communities' notification S/SECRET/8 and was expecti ng its Spanish version.  Her delegation shared 
the concerns raised by other delegations with rega rd to this notification, its last paragraph in 
particular.  His delegation also sought clarifications  on the issue of the starting point of the procedure 
under Article XXI.   
24. The representative of Brazil  said that his delegation was following the process initiated by the 
European Communities' notification S/SECRET/8 with  great interest.  His delegation believed that 
this process would test an essential article of the GATS as well as the architecture of the agreement in 
a moment when the whole membership was ca lled into the negotiation process to make new 
commitments.  His delegation hoped that at the e nd of the process, grey areas prevailing within the 
GATS could be clarified so that all the Members would feel more comfortable to engage in the 
negotiations on market access.  Agreeing to the view of other delegations regarding the last paragraph 
of notification S/SECRET/8, his delegation considered that it did not need to substantiate anything in 
order to declare itself as an affected Member .  He, however, noted that once the process of 
negotiations with the European Co mmunities started, his delegation mi ght need to substantiate its 
claims of interests.  For this purpose, his dele gation requested the European Communities to state 
since when those changes indicated in this  notification had been implemented.   
25. Regarding the question raised by a few delegati ons on the date of circulation as the starting 
point of the procedures under Article XXI, the Chairman  stated that paragraph 3 of document S/L/80 
did not make specific reference to one language or th ree languages.  He further stated that the current 
case was exceptional because its large size had dela yed the translation work.  He said it was up to 
Members to reach an agreement on when th e 45 days timeframe was to start.   
26. A representative of the Secretariat  agreed with what the Chairman had said regarding the 
language issue involved in the understanding of the da te of circulation.  He added that the practice 
within the WTO in this regard was not consistent.   
27. In response to the question on the date of ci rculation, the representative of the European 
Communities  noted that document S/L/80 was silent on this  point and did not require the notification  S/C/M/73/Add.1 
 Page 7 
 
 
  be circulated in a particular language.  He fu rther noted that the circulation had taken place on 
11 June 2004.  With regard to rules on document ci rculation, he referred to the decision adopted by 
the General Council on the circulation and derest riction of WTO documents, contained in document 
WT/L/452, which, he found, only required the versio ns of other languages be circulated expeditiously 
but not simultaneously.  Referring to a decision take n by the Dispute Settlement Body, he noted that a 
special rule had been established for dispute settlement , according to which the "date of circulation" in 
the DSU was the date on which docum ents were circulated in all three working languages.  He thus 
inferred that the general rule was that a document was not necessarily circulated simultaneously in 
three working languages within the WTO, otherwise the special rule in the dispute settlement would 
not be needed.  He said that his delegation’s con cern on this issue was that its rights would not be 
affected as document circulation was a matter out of its control.   
28. Responding to the question concerning the withdraw al of the previous notification S/C/N/231, 
the representative of the European Communities adm itted that the procedure set out in paragraph 19 
of document S/L/80 had been launched by the later notification S/SECRET/8 and that as a result, the 
process under Article XXI initiated by the previ ous notification S/C/N/ 231 had been aborted. 
29. With respect to the question on the consolidated list of MFN exemptions included in 
notification S/SECRET/8, recalling the statement hi s delegation made previously in relation to 
notification S/C/N/231, and referring to paragraph 6 of notification S/SECRET/8, he stated that his 
delegation had not launched any procedure regarding MFN exemptions and that the attached list had 
no legal value.  He further stated that the conso lidated schedule had been a ttached for transparency 
purposes and was to facilitate the exercise.   
30. Regarding the concern on the last paragraph of notification S/SECRET/8, the representative 
of the European Communities explained that his delegation was not seeking to establish any 
preconditions, nor trying to change any rules by incl usion of this paragraph in the notification.  His 
delegation noted that document S/L/80 did not set any legal requirement on information provision in 
terms of claims of interests.  The purpose of incl usion of this paragraph in the notification was to 
facilitate negotiations.  His delegation was of the vi ew that without the provision of information, it 
would be difficult to undertake discussions on the impact of modification or withdrawal of specific 
commitments and on the possible compensatory adjustment.   
31. Thanking the European Communities for its  responses, the representative of Brazil  reiterated 
its question.  He inquired whether any of the proposed modification or withdrawal of specific 
commitments in notification S/SECRET/8 had been implemented. 
32. The representative of Hong Kong, China  thanked the European Communities for responding 
to the questions raised by his delegation.  He, however, reiterated his delegation’s concern on the 
discrepancies between the list of commitments to be modified or withdrawn as set out in the Annex to 
notification S/SECRET/8, and the consolidated schedul e attached to this notification.  His delegation 
wished to have clarifications from the European  Communities on this issue either at the current 
meeting or in the bilateral setting.   
33. In response to the question raised by Brazil,  referring to paragraph 5 of notification 
S/SECRET/8, the representative of the European Communities  stated that the proposed modification 
or withdrawal of specific commitments was intende d to be implemented as of 1 June 2005.  He 
further stated that the actual implementation date would depend on the outcome of the future 
negotiations with affected Members.  Regarding th e question raised by Hong Kong, China, he stated 
that his delegation had provided the in formation required by document S/L/80, i.e.  the list of specific 
commitments modified or withdrawn, and that the consolidated schedule attached to the notification 
was not the final document which w ould depend on the outcome of ne gotiations.  Nevertheless, he 
said that the consolidated schedule was under technical  verification in his capital.  Noting some minor S/C/M/73/Add.1 
Page 8  
 
  technical discrepancies in the notification and th e points made by Hong Kong, China, he said his 
delegation might issue a corrigendum at a later stage.   
34. Thanking the European Communities for its r esponses to the questions raised by a few 
delegations, the representative of the United States
 said that her delegation wished to make comments 
on the withdrawn process with regard to the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden.  Taking note 
of the European Communities’ response to the ques tion raised by Brazil, she pointed out that the 
European Communities’ seeking rec ourse to Article XXI was the first time the procedure under this 
article had been used and that a few delegations  including her delegation had been mobilised to 
participate in the process.  Her delegation was concerned about when the proposed modifications 
would take effect.  She noted that some adjustment s might have to be made as time had passed, and 
that some issues might be added concerning Members’ ab ility to substantiate their claims of interests.  
Without prejudging what was entailed in Members’ abilit y to substantiate their claims of interests, her 
delegation wished to express its concern and woul d get back to the negotiations under Article XXI. 
35. Noting the view expressed by a few delegations that nothing in the notification 
(S/SECRET/8) introduced new obligations which woul d change existing process, the representative of 
Canada  indicated that his delegation was also concerne d about some ambiguities in paragraph 2 of the 
notification.  Referring to the sentence “ it should be recalled that the deadline for these negotiations 
was extended until 1 June 2004 following the mutual agreement...”, he said it was not clear whether 
“the mutual agreement” meant the bilateral ag reement between the European Communities and an 
affected Member or some other interpretations.  Hi s delegation did not believe that the language used 
in the notification should affect the inte rpretation of "the mutual agreement".   
36. Thanking the European Communities for its clear answers, especially for the answer to the 
question on the last paragraph of notificati on S/SECRET/8, the representative of Switzerland  noted 
that this paragraph had no signification of changing rules de jure .  He said his delegation expected 
that the rules de facto  would not be changed either.  Reminding that the notion used in Article XXI 
recognized services were different from goods in na ture, which made it very difficult to provide 
information in services  
37. Echoing the question raised by Canada , the representative of Chinese Taipei  said her 
delegation was concerned about th e procedure applied by the European Communities in withdrawing 
the previous notification S/C/N/231. 
38. The representative of Mexico  sought clarifications from the European Communities on 
whether the changes to the coverage of certain MF N exemptions were made pursuant to Article V:5 
and would be subject to the procedure under Article XXI. 
39. The representative of th e European Communities  reiterated that his delegation was entitled to 
enlarge the existing MFN exemptions under Article V:5.  However, his delegation had not launched 
the appropriate procedure.  The inclusion of the co nsolidated list of MFN exemptions was to give a 
complete overview of what the final schedule and the list of MFN exemptions might look like at the 
end of the process.  His delegation might revert to  the issue of MFN exemptions in accordance with 
the appropriate procedure.   
40. The representative of the United States  reiterated her delegation’ s view on the appropriate 
procedure for new MFN exemptions.   
41. The Chairman  proposed that the Council take note of  the notification and the statements 
made. 
42. The Council so agreed .  S/C/M/73/Add.1 
 Page 9 
 
 
  E. OTHER  BUSINESS 
43. The representative of Japan  sought clarifications on whether the date of circulation of the 
English version of document S/SECRET/8, namely 11 June 2004, could be regarded as the consensus 
on the starting point of the procedure under Article XXI. 
44. Noting that the European Communities had referred  to a few precedents regarding the issue of 
the date of circulation, the representative of the United States  stated that her delegation would not 
agree on one Member's interpretation.  She did not th ink that there was consensus on this issue.  Her 
delegation would proceed to protect its interests. 
45. The representative of the European Communities  reiterated his delegation's interpretation on 
the date of circulation that the circulation ha d taken place on the date indicated on document 
S/SECRET/8.  He encouraged Members to respect th e deadline counting from this particular date.  
He, however, said that it was up to each Member to take its own decision.   
__________