WT/REG4 62/2 
 
5 June 2023 
(23-3798) Page: 1/2 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements  Original: English  
 
FREE TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EFTA STATES (ICELAND, LIECHTENSTEIN,  
NORWAY AND SWITZERLAND)  AND TÜRKIYE   
(GOODS AND SERVICES)  
QUESTIONS AND REPLIES  
The following communication, dated 2 June  2023, is being circulated at the request of the delegations 
of the EFTA States (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland)  and Türkiye . 
 
_______________  
 
 
Question from Argentina  
 
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures  
 
1.1.  With regard to sanitary and phytosanitary measures, paragraph 3.35 of the factual 
presentation states that an "upon request" MFN clause provides that SPS arrangements 
concluded by all Parties with the European Union may be extended to the Parties, to be 
duly reflected in a revised article.  
Do EFTA and Türkiye plan to address this issue in the near future?  
 
Joint response from the Parties  
 
As of today, no request was made by the Parties under paragraph Article 2.11 para. 5 of the 
Agreement.  
 
While there is  no specific plan to address this question in the near future, it cannot be excluded 
that a request for review is made. A hypothetical case for such request would be if all Parties under 
the EFTA -Türkiye FTA agree bilaterally on new and equivalent arrangem ents on SPS matters with 
the European Union and that Parties under the FTA desire to extend those arrangements to each 
other.  
 
The EFTA States and Türkiye clarify that the referred clause is not an MFN clause, but a review 
clause that applies only between the Parties to this agreement and under certain specific conditions 
for it to be triggered. A correction of the factual presentation prepared by the WTO Secretariat is 
requested.  
 
Questions from Canada  
 
1.2.  Article 4 of Annex XIII of the RTA provides that: "T he Parties confirm their current 
practice under the terms of the Decision of 13 December 2017 of the WTO Ministerial 
Conference in Buenos Aires (FN1) of not imposing customs duties on electronic 
transmissions. (FN2)".  
 How do the Parties view the interacti on between this confirmation of their practice 
on the one hand, and the MC12 Ministerial Decision and future WTO outcomes on the other 
hand?  
 WT/REG4 62/2 
 
- 2 - 
 
  Joint response from the Parties  
 
The Article was drafted in accordance with the then existing terms and condition s with a 
reference to the Ministerial Decision of 2017 (WT/MIN(17)/65) through which Parties had agreed to 
maintain the current practice of not imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions until their 
next session in 2019.  
 
In the meantime, in Janua ry 2019, a subset of the WTO membership including the EFTA States 
and Türkiye have launched negotiations under the WTO Joint Statement Initiative (JSI) on E -
Commerce. The negotiations cover a potential article on customs duties on electronic transmissions.  
Any agreement in the context of the JSI would apply to the EFTA States and Türkiye apart from the 
time-limited moratorium commitment in their Free Trade Agreement.  
 
1.3.  Article 5.5 of Annex XIII of the RTA provides that: "Subject to each Party 's domestic 
laws and regulations, nothing in this Article shall prevent:  
a. online consumers from choosing the appropriate method for giving their consent 
to a sales contract; and  
b. online sellers from choosing an appropriate method to conduct their business 
activities when they require the consent of the consumers to electronic 
transactions or communications."  
 How would this article apply in the event that an online consumer wants to give 
his/her consent to a sales contract in a manner that differs from the o ne that the online 
seller chose to conduct its business activities ( e.g. paper contract or electronic 
agreement)?  
 
Joint response from the Parties  
 
 As it is seen in the paragraph (b) of Article 5.5, the ability to choose appropriate methods for 
online sel lers is relevant to “conducting a business activity” rather than obtaining the consent of an 
online consumer. Therefore, we believe that there is no potential conflict in the Article with respect 
to the selection of consent methods.  
 
Read jointly, subpara graphs (a) and (b) reiterate the freedom of online consumers and sellers 
to agree on the essential points in an e -commerce transaction, which includes the modalities for the 
making of the sales contract. They are subject to each Party’s domestic laws and r egulations. If in 
domestic legislation a specific rule on the method for obtaining consumer consent exists then that 
rule will apply.  
 
__________