RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  S/C/M/86 
12 March 2007 
 (07-1032) 
Council for Trade in Services  
  
 
REPORT OF THE MEETING HELD ON 1 MARCH 2007 
 
Note by the Secretariat
1 
  
1. On 1 March 2007, the Council for Trade in Services held a meeting chaired by 
Ambassador István Major (Hungary).  The agenda  for the meeting was contained in document 
WTO/AIR/2964.   
2. The Chairman
 said that, under "Other Business", he intended to make a brief statement 
regarding the state of his consultations on the appoint ment of the new chairpersons to the subsidiary 
bodies to the Council for Trade in Services. 
3. The representatives of the European Communities , Australia  and the United States  said that, 
under "Other Business", their delegations wished to raise the issue of the certification of the EC-25 
schedule. 
4. The agenda was adopted , as modified. 
I. NOTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO ARTICLES III:3, V:7 AND VII:4 OF THE GATS 
5. The Chairperson  drew the Council's attention to no tifications made pursuant to GATS 
Article III, received from Switzerland (S/C/N/376 to  384) and Armenia (S/C/N/389).  Switzerland 
also submitted three notifications pursuant to  GATS Article VII:4 (S/C/N/385 to 387).   
6. The Council took note  of those notifications. 
7. The Chairperson  also drew attention to a notification pursuant to Article V:7 (Economic 
Integration) made by Brazil on behalf  of MERCOSUR (S/C/N/388 and Corr.1). 
8. The representative of Paraguay  said that, as the current chair of MERCOSUR, her delegation 
had the pleasure of introducing the Protocol of Montevideo on Trade in Services, signed on 15 December 1997 and entered into force on 7 December 2005.  The Protocol, whose duration was indefinite, aimed at applying the provisions of th e Asunción Treaty providing for the full circulation 
of goods, services and productive factors between the st ate parties.  The Protocol established that the 
programme for the liberalization of trade in servi ces would be completed within ten years from its 
entry into force.  The list of specific commitments of  the Parties to the Protocol could be consulted on 
the website of MERCOSUR (www.mercosur.int). 
9. The Council took note
 of the notification and of the statement made, and referred  the 
agreement notified to the Committee on Regi onal Trade Agreements for examination. 
                                                      
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. S/C/M/86 
Page 2  
 
  II. NEW NOTIFICATION FORMAT FOR REGIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS 
10. The Chairperson
 recalled that, at its 44th Session, on 13 October 2006, the Committee on 
Regional Trade Agreements (CRTA) had agreed  to recommend the introduction of a common and 
simplified format for the notification of regiona l trade agreements (RTAs), including those under 
Article V of the GATS.  The recommendation could be found in the Annex to document WT/REG/16.  
In forwarding its recommendation, the CRTA had indi cated that the proposed format would facilitate 
the task of the parties to comply with the requi rement to notify an RTA while making available to 
other WTO Members the necessary basic elements in a systematic and coherent way.  According to 
the CRTA, this proposed format was in line with  the overall approach to RTAs adopted by the 
General Council in its December 2006 Decision, which established, on a provisional basis, a 
Transparency Mechanism for RTAs.  As far as th e GATS was concerned, the format would replace, 
for notifications under Article V, the current format  used since 1995 for all notifications made under 
the GATS and contained in document S/L/5. 
11. The representative of the United States  supported the adoption of the common format for 
notifications of RTAs, proposed by the Committee in Regional Trade Agreements to the Council for 
Trade in Goods, the Council for Trade in Servi ces and the Committee on Trade and Development.  
This format ensured that relevant information con cerning the entry into force of an RTA was provided 
to the Secretariat, as envisioned by the Transp arency Mechanism for regional trade agreements 
adopted by the General Council in December 2006.  The format was simple, straightforward, and 
comported with the move to a greater transparency for all RTAs.   
12. The representative of Canada  supported the basic decision taken earlier with respect to 
notifications of RTAs, as well as the format in doc ument WT/REG/16.  His delegation wished to seek 
clarification from either the Chair or the Secret ariat, concerning the rela tionship between this new 
format and document S/L/5, which set out notifica tions' procedures with respect to the Council for 
Trade in Services.  The question was to what extent  the CTS needed to make some cross references to 
S/L/5 since that document contained references to GATS Articles V and V bis. 
13. The Secretariat  said that, upon the entry into force of the WTO Agreement and the GATS, the 
CTS had adopted, in 1995, a set of guidelines fo r notifications under the GATS, contained in 
document S/L/5.  Those guidelines listed all the no tification requirements under the GATS, i.e. about 
ten of them, including notifications under GATS Articles V and V bis, the latter dealing with labour 
market integration agreements.  As the Canadi an delegation had pointed out, replacing the 1995 
format for notifications with the new notifi cation format for RTAs probably needed some 
clarifications, particularly for those in capitals w ho might not be as familiar  with the procedures.  
Should delegations so wished, the Secretariat could prepare a draft decision for adoption of the new format by the CTS.  This draft decision would clarify that the new format would replace the S/L/5 format as far as notifications under GATS Article V were concerned.  Concerning the other question 
raised by the Canadian delegation, i.e. whether th is new format should also  cover notifications under 
Art. V bis, that was a policy question for Members to c onsider.  Should Members so wish, this could 
also be provided for in the draft decision. 
14. The representative of Canada
 supported a draft decision on this issue. 
15. The representative of Brazil  joined previous speakers in supporting the new notification 
format agreed upon in the CRTA.  His delegati on had already used it with respect to recent 
MERCOSUR notifications.  His delegation wished nevertheless to express reservations about the 
selective quotation of the notification requirement of  the Enabling Clause.  Even though this issue was 
not strictly under consideration in this Council and should be taken up in the appropriate forum, his 
delegation wished to place on record that  it had reservations in this regard.  S/C/M/86 
 Page 3 
 
 
  16. The representative of the United States  said that her delegation would also like to see a draft 
decision and would need to get clearance with her capital. 
17. The Chairperson  said that, on this basis, the Secretariat would circulate a draft decision, as 
requested by some delegations.  After seeing this draft and consulting with capitals, delegations would 
revert to this issue at the next meeting of the CTS.  It was so agreed . 
III. OTHER BUSINESS 
18. The Chairperson  opened the floor on the issue raised by the delegations of the European 
Communities, Australia and the United States under "Other Business". 
19. The representative of the European Communities  recalled that, in accordance with the 
relevant WTO provisions, the certification pro cedure of the GATS schedule of the European 
Communities and its Member States had been concl uded on 18 December 2006.  He wished to take 
this opportunity to thank the affected WTO Memb ers for their cooperation in the course of the 
negotiation and certification phases.  He also wished  to make the following comments.  In accordance 
with the general principles of law, the EC only co nsidered itself being bound by the terms of the 
agreements it had signed with the affected Members, which were attached to the reports circulated by 
the Secretariat, in accordance with paragraph 5 of  S/L/80.  Consequently, any unilateral statement 
made by the affected Members, whether written or oral, had no legal value.  During the certification 
procedure, no WTO Member had made any objection in the course of the 45 days period which was available for this under paragra ph 20 of S/L/80 and paragraph 1 of  S/L/84, and which had been 
unilaterally extended by the European Communities by 22 further days (document S/C/W/273/Add.1).  
The absence of objections confirmed that the certified schedule correctly reflected the results of the 
negotiations with the affected Members under Article  XXI of the GATS, and that the modifications 
and withdrawals contained in the certified schedule di d not exceed those which were either notified in 
documents S/SECRET/8 and S/SECRET/9, or which we re described in the "Explanatory note on the 
rectifications or changes of purely technical char acter" (i.e., Part III of the document S/C/W/273).  
The certified schedule would enter into force fo llowing the relevant internal decision-making 
procedures applicable, and would replace both the existing schedule of the European Communities 
and their Member States and the individual schedules of the 13 EC Member States who had joined the EC in 1995 and in 2004.  As to the current situa tion of the internal decision-making procedure, it was 
as follows.  Following the signature of the relevant  agreements with the affected Members and the 
completion of the certification procedure in De cember 2006, the European Commission was now at 
the stage of proposing the conclusion of the agreements  to the EC Council.  Like in previous occasion 
(e.g., financial services extended negotiations), th e new GATS schedule would enter into force when 
the EC notified to the WTO that the internal pr ocedures had been completed. The Commission would 
be presenting its proposals to the EC Council in a few weeks. 
20. The representative of Australia
 said that her delegation remained concerned that there was 
still no clarity as to when the EC-25 schedule r esulting from the extended Article XXI negotiations 
over the last three years would enter into force.  Australia recognised that existing schedules would 
remain in force until the new certified schedule entere d into force, and that, therefore, the overall 
balance of commitments remained.  However, Aust ralia was concerned that (i) the commercial value 
of the compensation package (which was premised on early binding of elements of the Doha offer) 
was being cynically whittled away, and (ii) th ere were significant and unwelcome precedential 
ramifications from any manipulation in this process.   Australia reiterated its understanding that both 
S/L/80 and S/L/84 required a notifying Member to specify  a date for entry into force no later than the 
end of the 45-day period.  Both S/L/80 and S/L/84 specifically said "At the end of the 45-day period, if no objection has been raised, the Secretariat sh all issue a communication to all Members to the 
effect that the certification procedure has been concl uded, indicating the date of entry into force of the 
modifications".  This provision was clear.  There was no scope for ambiguity.  And yet, the S/C/M/86 
Page 4  
 
  communication of certification (S/L/286) did not specify a date of entry into force.  Australia rejected 
the suggestion included in the certification comm unication that paragraph 11 of document S/C/W/273 
represented agreement by Australia to wave the cl ear requirements of S/L/80 and S/L/84, and allowed 
the EC schedule to enter into for ce at an unspecified date "following the completion of the internal 
decision-making procedures of the EC and its member states".  Australia called on the EC to specify a 
date for entry into force. 
21. The representative of the United States
 said that her delegation w as also concerned that EC 
had still not specified a date for entry into force of its certified schedule.  Since this should have been 
done at the time of certification, the United States asked that the EC specify this date as soon as 
possible, so that the full commercial value of the co mpensation was realized.  This would also avoid a 
weakening of the trust and confidence that Members placed in other Members' ability to abide by the 
GATS provisions, related procedures and the unders tandings that they had undertaken to find a 
solution to issues that had been affecting Member s, such as the US and several other Members. 
22. The representative of India  said that his delegation supported the statements by Australia and 
the United States, and urged the EC to specify the da te of entry into force, more particularly because 
of the services negotiations.  A date should be specified immediately. 
23. The representative of China  supported what had been said by the three previous delegations 
on this issue. 
24. The representative of Hong Kong, China  said that her delegations wished to echo the 
statements by the previous delegations.  Hong K ong, China was one of the participants in the 
negotiations with the EC and had always sought lega l certainty in those negotiations.  Her delegation 
looked forward to the clarification by the EC on this issue. 
25. The representative of Ecuador  supported the statements ma de by previous delegations. 
26. The representative of th e European Communities  said that there was legal certainty since, as 
long as the EC-25 certified schedule was not in fo rce, the current schedules of the European 
Communities and its Members States, as well as th e current 13 individual schedules were fully valid 
and in force.  These schedules represented at this  point in time the legal obligations of the EC.  
Regarding the date of entry into force of the new cer tified schedule, he said that very clear terms had 
been included in all the agreements that had been signed with the a ffected members and circulated by 
the WTO Secretariat.  In the final paragraph of th is agreement, there was a sentence stating:  "The 
results of the negotiations are to enter into force after completion of the certification procedures on a 
date to be specified by the EC following completio n of the EC's internal approval procedures which 
the EC endeavours to accelerate as much a possible."  Hence, it was stated that the EC would indicate 
a clear date after the completion of its internal decision making procedures.  There was also a sentence whereby the EC would endeavour to acceler ate as much as possible the process, which was 
what the European Commission was aiming at.  The Commission expected that, during the month of March, the formal proposal would be transmitted to the EC Council of Ministers for adoption and, on 
this basis, a date of entry into force could hopefull y be indicated in the very near future.  He added 
that document S/L/286 of 18 December 2006, concluding the certification procedure, also clearly indicated that the new schedule should enter into fo rce on a date to be specified by the EC and its 
Member States, i.e. once the EC had completed its internal decision-making procedures. 
27. The representative of Australia
 said that his delegation neve r understood the agreed language 
just quoted by the EC (concerning the entry into for ce on a date to be specified by the EC following 
the completion of its internal decision-making pr ocedures) as meaning that the date would be 
specified following the completion of the EC's internal  procedures, but that the date to be specified 
would be following completion.  Nevertheless, a date would be specified, as required by S/L/80 and  S/C/M/86 
 Page 5 
 
 
  S/L/84, which had to be read in conjunction with  the agreed language quoted by the European 
Communities.  It meant that the date to be specifi ed would be a date which was determined as beyond 
the completion of the EC's internal process.  Austra lia stood by its interpretation of S/L/80 and S/L/84 
and asked the EC to nominate a date.  Austra lia was willing to allow the EC a month in the 
nomination, but a specific date would be very welcome. 
28. The representative of the European Communities  said that, if there had been a date set by 
which the internal decision-making process of the EC  would be completed and if that had been known 
at the time of the negotiations, the EC would have b een very happy to include that date already in the 
agreements.  Precisely, the reason why this sen tence was put in the agreements and discussed 
extensively with the affected Members was the fact that it was not at that point possible to predict 
with certainty when the internal decision-making pr ocedure of the EC would be completed.  This was 
a reason why the EC had included this sentence and, today, his delegation wanted to inform of the 
state of play with regard to the implementation of  this part of the agreem ent.  His delegation was 
certainly ready to inform the CTS on a regular basi s of the state of play of the internal decision 
making procedures.  He wished to reiterate that th e objective of his delegation was that the period for 
adoption of the internal decisions should be as short as possible. 
29. The Council took note  of the statements made. 
30. Turning to the nomination of the new chairpers ons to the subsidiary bodies, the Chairperson  
said that, in accordance with th e Guidelines for the Appointment of Officers to WTO Bodies 
(WT/L/510), the outgoing chairperson of the Counc il would normally conduct consultations on the 
appointment of the new chairpersons of its subsidia ry bodies, with a view to proposing a list of names 
for these bodies.  At the meeting of the General Council of 7 February, he had announced that he 
would conduct such consultations in the following w eeks.  Delegations having interest in this matter 
had been invited to approach him.  In spite of many bilateral and plurilate ral consultations, he was 
unfortunately not yet in a position to propose a slate of names which would benefit from full 
consensus.  He intended to continue his consultati ons with a view to proposing a slate of names as 
soon as possible.  A consensus decision would be communicated to delegations by fax. 
IV. APPOINTMENT OF THE NEW CHAIRPERSON 
31. The Chairperson  said that, based on the consensus reach ed in the General Council, he was 
pleased to pass on the chairmanship of the Council to Ambassador Trevor CLARKE, of Barbados.  
He was confident that with his experience and wi sdom, Ambassador Clarke would guide the future 
work of the Council skilfully and efficiently.  As  the outgoing chairperson of the Council, he had 
enjoyed working with all Members and had appreci ated their cooperative and constructive spirit in 
fulfilling the mandate of the Council.  He also thanked the outgoing chairs of the subsidiary bodies, as 
well as the Secretariat for their co-operation and effort s in supporting his work.  He proposed that the 
Council elect Ambassador Trevor Clarke by acclamation as the new Chairperson of the Council for Trade in Services.  The Council elected
 Ambassador Clarke by acclamation. 
32. The Chairperson  thanked the Ambassador of Hungary for his kind and challenging words.  
With the support of Members and the Secretariat, he would do his best to ensu re that the work of the 
CTS would continue smoothly.  He appreciated the confirmation of his appointment and looked 
forward to working with Members and to further stimulating experiences. 
33. The meeting was adjourned . 
__________