RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG170/M/1 
6 September 2005 
 (05-3857) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements 
Fortieth Session  
 
 
 
EXAMINATION OF THE  
ENLARGEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION 
 
Note on the Meeting of 26 July 2005  
 
Chairman: Mr. R. Saborío (Costa Rica) 
  
1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/2624. 
2. Under Agenda Item C.II of its Fortie th Session, the Committee on Regional Trade 
Agreements (hereinafter CRTA or  the Committee) took up the first round of examination of the goods 
aspects of the Treaty on Enlargement of the Eur opean Union.  The following topics were discussed: 
 A. General Remarks 
 B. Background Information on the Agreement  C. Trade Provisions 
 D. General Provisions of the Agreement 
 3. The Chairman
 said that the Agreement had been signed on 14 April 2003 and had entered into 
force on 1 May 2004; it had been notified to the WTO on 30 April 2004, as document WT/REG170/N/1.  The text of the Treaty of Accession could be f ound on the internet at the following 
URL link:  http://europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/neg otiations/treaty_of_a ccession_2003/index.htm
.  
The terms of reference for the examination had been  adopted on 5 July 2004 by the Council for Trade 
in Goods and were contained in  document WT/REG170/1.  He proposed to organize the examination 
by first asking the Parties and other Members for gene ral comments, and then to turn to the specifics 
of the Agreement by using the Standard Form at, document WT/REG170/2, to guide the debate. 
A. GENERAL REMARKS  
4. The representative of th e European Communities , speaking on behalf of the European Union 
(EU), i.e. the European Communities (EC) and its Me mber States, indicated that the Enlargement was 
a historical event for the Europ ean continent and possibly even fu rther afield.  The accession to the 
Union of the ten new member states ended centuries of division on the European continent and it marked the final dismantling of the Iron Curtain that had divided the continent into two parts.  He 
remarked that those who had done their service in  their respective countries had been trained until 
very recently to fight another war on the European  continent; the accession of the ten member states 
into the EU had finally put an end to a very depressi ng chapter of European history.  As for trade, he 
stressed that the Enlargement had been the largest of its kind for the EU.  It had created a single 
market, with one set of rules on trade, comprisi ng 450 million citizens, or consumers for the purpose 
of third countries.  The process of accession had been long, very hard and very comprehensive.  It had 
started in 1998 with six of the new member states, and in 1999 with the other four, and it had ended in 
December 2002.  It had been an enormous effort  for the new member states; it had entailed the 
adoption of the EC's acquis  – i.e. the EC laws (involving more than 80,000 pages of law and WT/REG170/M/1 
Page 2  
 
 regulations), the reform of domestic bureaucratic  and administrative procedures, and a substantial 
strengthening of judicial systems.  The Act of Accession that had been c oncluded at the European 
Council in Copenhagen in December 2002, signed on  16 April 2004, and which had entered into force 
on May 2004, involved 30 chapters  extending far beyond trade.  The Act of Accession went from the 
four freedoms (free movement of goods, persons, services and capital), which was the core economic 
pillar of European integration, to issues like comp any law, competition policy, transportation policy, 
taxation, economic monetary union, social policy,  unemployment, energy and industrial policy, small 
and medium sized enterprises policies, science and research, education and training, cultural and 
division policy, environment and consumer health protection, justice and home affairs, external 
relations, economic and foreign security policy, a nd so on.  In sum, it was a very extensive 
commitment made by the new member states.  He pointed out that these had fully embraced and 
adopted the common commercial policy, including th e binding commitments made by the EC-15 in 
various bilateral, plurilateral, and multilateral agr eements.  They had also adopted all the rules and 
regulations related to the internal market.  He re marked that free trade in goods between the EC and 
the new member states was already in place be fore accession, through Free Trade Agreements 
(FTAs); these had been superseded by the Act of  Accession and in accordance with the notification 
provided the previous year.  The Act of Accession provided for the adoption by the new member states of the common external tariff presently applie d by the Community.  Turning to some procedural 
matters, he noted that since the EC Treaties ha d been notified and reviewed in the WTO, his 
delegation had doubts as to whether the Enlargement had to be notified as significant changes to the 
EU or as a new notification.  Ultimately they had opted for the latter since the Enlargement did not 
change anything within the EC, it was rather an extens ion of the territorial scope of its policies to the 
new member states.  He concluded by reiterating that the new member states had taken on board a 
very comprehensive package of EC  policies which went far beyond trad e.  He added that there were 
some temporary transitional arrangements of a limited nature with regards to the 30 chapters of the 
Act of Accession and that he would be ha ppy to elucidate on these and other issues. 
5. The representative of Canada
 welcomed the Enlargement of the EU and extended 
congratulations to the 25 members and the Europ ean Commission for this major achievement.  He 
expressed however dissatisfaction with resp ect to the conduct of the negotiations under 
Article XXIV:6 of the GATT 1994 by the EC.  Without  going into details, he noted that the EC had 
been intransigent in its unwillingness to negotiate co mpensation for particular tariff lines in spite of 
Canada holding negotiating rights on those items and having adequately demonstrated that it had 
suffered impairment as a result of increases in tariff s in their exports to the new EU members.  Noting 
that the tariff increases had been unilaterally implemen ted by the EC and had been in effect for over a 
year, he said that two lessons could be drawn from that:  first, as a matter of course, all Members who had an interest in the EU Enlargement negotiations  should continue to exchange information on an 
on-going basis; second, the need for careful preparat ion on the part of new or soon to be enlarged 
customs unions so that in the future Members' right s were not impaired for long periods of time such 
as in the current case. 
6. The representative of Australia
 said that while the representative of the EC had provided a lot 
of details on the extraordinary scope of the accession, the Standard Format was not much help in that 
regard.  Her delegation had a nu mber of questions, which would be provided in writing, on the 
schedules of export subsidy reduction commitments fo r agricultural products.  Many of the questions 
did not really fit into the Standard Format.  She said that in 2004, the schedule of the EU-15 and the 
individual schedules of the ten newly acceding member s had been withdrawn, and the EC had advised 
that those schedules would be applied on a de facto  basis.  In respect of each of the products listed in 
the EU-15 schedule, she asked th e EC to advise:  (a) what de facto  limits were applied to the EU-25, 
in terms of budgetary outlay and quantity commitme nts in respect of the export subsidy reduction 
commitments; (b) in terms of product coverage in the export subsidy reduction commitments, the 
extent to which the products c overed in the EU-15 schedule were also covered in each of the 
schedules of the ten new member states; (c) whet her EC export refunds like those that had been  WT/REG170/M/1 
 Page 3 
 
 
 recently introduced on wheat were available to all of the EU-25 member states, irrespective of the 
product coverage of the individual schedules of e xport subsidy reduction commitments of the ten new 
member states; (d) if export refunds were generally  available to all of the newly acceding states, how 
did the EC give effect to the terms of the WT O protocols of accession of Estonia, Latvia and 
Lithuania.  She added that the EC needed to provi de calculation sheets to verify how it had arrived at 
the figures and concordance of product descriptions  and classifications; in the case of export subsidy 
schedules, it also needed to inform, for each produc t, on the levels of trade between the individual 
new member states, as well as between them and the EU-15, and on the base years for calculation purposes.  She remarked that the EC’s own public st atistical data used for its internal Enlargement 
exercise seemed to indicate in some cases a higher level of trade between the new member states and 
the EU-15 than was apparent from the draft schedules.   Finally, she asked the EC to table its draft 
EU-25 agriculture schedules to the WTO. 
7. The representative of the United States
 extended congratulations to the EU and its new 
members for what was certainly a historical even t.  She also echoed the comments made by the 
representatives of Canada and Australia with rega rd to Article XXIV:6 of the GATT 1994 and the 
more detailed questions on data a nd subsidies.  She noted that th e effects of the Enlargement on 
third countries was mixed and that while ther e were improvements in the overall business 
environment and some tariff liberalization, specific areas gave rise to concerns too. She would ask 
detailed questions on these aspects in the course of the examination as well as providing them in writing if necessary. 
8. The representative of Japan
 welcomed the Enlargement of the EU and its historical 
significance.  He echoed concerns raised by othe r Members on the compensatory adjustment process 
provided for in Article XXIV:6 of the GATT 1994.  As a matter of course, he indicated that compensatory adjustment negotiations should have been concluded well before the Enlargement.  
Noting that these negotiations had been delayed with  several countries and how important the process 
was to third countries, he urged the EC to prepare and promptly negotiate the compensatory 
adjustment with third countries we ll before the next enlargement. 
9. The representative of Costa Rica
 congratulated the EC for this historical event and like other 
Members expressed concerns over the conduct of  negotiations under Article XXIV:6 of the 
GATT 1994.  He noted that the tariff amendments had been applied since 2004 and that Costa Rican 
exports had been suffering as a result.  Like Jap an, he had wished to see the tariff compensatory 
adjustments being negotiated before the Agreement's entry into force.  He stated that Costa Rica 
wished to ask questions of a more specific nature in that regard and that he reserved the right to do so 
in the future. 
10. The representative of Guatemala  welcomed the accession to the EU of the ten new members 
and shared the concerns raised by other Member s with respect to negotia tions under Article XXIV:6 
and Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994, especially sin ce Guatemala was one of  those Members that 
had been wronged by the EC's unilateral interpre tation of "substantial interest" which entitled a 
Member to initiate negotiations un der Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994. 
11. The representative of Colombia  extended congratulations to the EU for the Enlargement 
which was of historical significance not only for the WTO but for the world in general.  She echoed other Members' concerns over the EC's conduct with regard to the process of compensatory 
adjustment negotiations, which had prevented the co mpensation of injuries and distortions that had 
been caused to products of great importance to he r country's exports.  That would not have taken 
place if the process had been carried out differently.  Sh e stated that she wished to reserve the right to 
ask questions of a more specific nature once her authorities had studied the information supplied by 
the EC during the course of the current examination. WT/REG170/M/1 
Page 4  
 
 12. The representative of Argentina
 acknowledged the significance of the EU Enlargement and 
had some observations with respect to its trade relate d effects.  He indicated that he had doubts about 
the systemic effects of the Enlargement with regards to agricultural subsidies, in particular domestic 
support.  Like other Members, he also expressed co ncerns with respect to the unsatisfactory way in 
which the procedures contained in Article XXI V:6 and Article XXVIII of the GATT 1994 had been 
dealt with.  Without entering into details, he sai d that it was his understanding that there were 
situations where current market access conditions in the ten new member states had been made more 
restrictive than before the Enlargemen t.  He wished to reserve the right  to ask further questions in that 
regard; he also wondered whether the EC delega tion would be presenting Members with additional 
information to that which had already been submitted. 
13. The representative of Chile  said that the current discussion was a good example of the 
tensions between RTAs and the WTO Agreements, par ticularly with respect to Article XXIV of the 
GATT 1994 as it had been highlighted by previous delegations with regards to the question of 
conformity of the EU Enlargement with the procedures of Article XXIV:6 of the GATT 1994.  The 
Committee would have to consider that kind of ques tion carefully in the future.  He referred to the 
FTA between Chile and the EU and to the fact th at all their commercial interests were negotiated 
under that framework. 
14. The representative of the European Communities  took note of the comments made with respect 
to the ongoing negotiations under Article XXIV:6 of the GATT 1994 and indicated that he would pass 
them on to the relevant negotiators.  However, as a point of order, he wondered whether the CRTA was 
the right forum to discuss matters related to Article XXIV:6 of the GATT 1994 in so far as Members 
sought detailed information on the conduct of those negotiations.  He stated  that he had serious 
questions on the procedure of the current review.  He  indicated that the EC had notified on 19 January 
the withdrawal of the schedules and had supplied th e required trade data.  The EC had subsequently 
entered into the negotiations provided for by Artic le XXIV:6 of the GATT 1994 on the basis of the 
relevant procedures of the WTO.  Those negotiations were ongoing; they had been concluded with some 
Members, but were pending with others.  He added that the review of a customs union was concerned, 
among other things, with the meas urement of its general incide nce, while negotiations under 
Article XXIV:6 of the GATT 1994 were on a tariff lin e basis.  He took note of the comment made by 
the representative of the United States that the overal l effect of the Enlargement was mixed.  However, 
in his view, it was quite clearly very much in favour not only of the parties of the enlarged EU, but 
certainly of the entire WTO Membership.  In that re spect, he stressed that the whole purpose of having 
Article XXIV:6 of the GATT 1994 was a collective recognition by the WTO Membership that when 
dealing with customs unions there migh t be areas, on a tariff line basi s, where Members might lose out.  
Turning to the question by the representative of Argent ina, he said that his de legation would be pleased 
to provide Members with any additional information th ey required for the purpose of the current review.  
Finally, he asked the Chairman and the Secretariat for advice on whether the Membership held that the 
review of the Enlargement had to be put on hol d until discussions under Article XXIV:6 of the 
GATT 1994 had been concluded in order to make their assessment of whether the overall effect of the 
Enlargement had been positive or  negative.  On that point the representative of Australia  stressed that 
she was looking forward to receiving written rep lies to her questions on ex ports subsidy reduction 
commitments.  The Chairman  said that the current review and negotiations under Article XXIV:6 of the 
GATT 1994 were parallel processes that should progress i ndependently from each ot her notwithstanding 
their linkages.  He added that the comments by the EC as well as those from Members with respect to 
the application of the procedures of Articl e XXIV:6 of the GATT 1994 had been useful. 
B. BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE AGREEMENT  
15. The representative of Australia  asked whether transitional measures or exceptions existed in 
relation to the EU customs union.  The re presentative of the European Communities  indicated that 
information on transitional measures or arrangement s to the customs union were to be found under 
Section II:1.3 of the Standard Format, which liste d the only two transitional arrangements in place 
applicable to Hungary and Malta and limited to very few products.  WT/REG170/M/1 
 Page 5 
 
 
 16. In response to a question by the representative of the United States  on whether any sectors of 
the EU economies had been excluded from the four  freedoms, the representative of the European 
Communities  said that no goods sector had been excluded.  He added that, as to the services aspects 
of the Enlargement, the information would be prov ided in the corresponding standard format for the 
review.  Replying to a follow-up question by the representative of the United States  on how the EC 
would define "sector", the represen tative of the European Communities  clarified that the Agreement 
provided for the full application of the internal market  for the circulation of goods internally, that is 
free circulation for the EC as a whole (once a produc t got into country X, it could then be sold to 
country Y, Z, etc.).  He reiterated that there was no exclusion of goods in the internal market.  On that 
point, he acknowledged the comments made by the dele gate of Australia that the Standard Format 
fitted very poorly in a case like the one before th em which went far beyond the customs union, to 
include an internal market and an embryo to an  economic monetary union with a common currency. 
C. TRADE PROVISIONS  
17. The representative of the United States  sought confirmation that all customs and border fees 
had been eliminated on all intra-EU trade; whether tariff rate quotas (TRQs) remained in effect within 
in the EU;  in the case of products subject to cu rrent access tariff quotas in the EU, but only to tariffs 
in the acceding countries, whether the EU was willi ng to commit itself to a new quota level equal to 
the aggregation of the EU-15 current access quotas,  the acceding country's imports and the growth 
factor in accordance with the provisions of pa ragraph 6 of the Uruguay Round Understanding on 
Article XXVIII.  Furthermore, referring to Article 6.8 of the Accession Treaty, she was interested in 
knowing the effect on third parties of the accession of  the new member states to the steel and steel 
products quantitative restrictions imposed by the EU.  Finally, with regard to Article XXIV:6 of the 
GATT 1994 which required a party to an RTA that raised its bound tariff rates to provide 
compensation, she wondered why the EC was o ffering some Members only temporary tariff 
reductions as compensation for permanent tariff increase s.  She indicated that she would provide the 
questions in writing. 
18. The representative of th e European Communities  said that he looked forward to receiving the 
questions in writing, especially those concerning th e quota allocation, which in his opinion were also 
linked to negotiations under Article XXIV:6 of the GATT 1994, and the arrangements for steel and 
steel products.  With respect to the question of tem porary versus permanent ar rangements, he said that 
the issue came down to what could be agreed bilate rally in the course of negotiations.  He added that 
some third parties had found that they could get more out of a temporary arrangement than from a 
permanent one, probably due to the fact that they counted on getting more out of the DDA later on.  
Moving on, he enumerated the various products to which transitional arrangements for the free 
circulation of goods applied.  First, there were  Directives 2001/82/EC and 2001/83/EC, which granted 
to five member states (Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta, Poland and Slovenia) transitional arrangements to 
allow for the upgrading on marketing authorizatio n on medicinal products for human and veterinary 
use for which marketing authorization issued under previous legislation, not compliant with the 
acquis, remained valid after the date of accession.  Second, through Directive 90/385/EEC Poland had 
been granted a transitional arrangement with rega rd to the marketing authorization for medical 
devices.  Third, there was Directive 2000/36/EC, on cocoa and chocolate products intended for human 
consumption, whereby Malta might authorize the use in  its territory of the term "milk chocolate" to 
designate the product referred to in point 5 of th e Directive on the condition that the term was 
accompanied in all cases by an indication of the amount of dried milk solids laid down for each of the 
products in the form described in the Directive.   Finally, there was Regulation 466/2001/EC, relating 
to the maximum levels of certain contaminants in foodstuff, whereby in li ne with the transitional 
arrangement granted to a number of the present memb ers states, i.e. the EC-15, and in accordance 
with the procedures laid down in Article 8 of Regulation 315/93, the Commission might grant Estonia 
a derogation allowing it to place on its market Baltic  fish exceeding the established dioxin limits until 
the end of 2001.  He stressed that these were th e only limitations to the free circulation of goods 
among the 25 EU member states. WT/REG170/M/1 
Page 6  
 
 19. The representative of the United States
 was interested in knowi ng whether any transitional 
measures had been taken with regard to the im plementation of EC veterinary and phytosanitary 
measures such as those envisaged under Article 42 of the Act of Access ion.  The representative of the 
European Communities  asked for the question to be submitted in writing so that he could provide a 
more comprehensive reply. 
20. The representative of the United States , noting that Article 37 of the Act of Accession 
appeared to create a transitional safeguard, was in terested in knowing what protective measures were 
envisaged, had any been taken, against whom and wh at were they taken for; furthermore, she asked 
whether there was a requirement that the "serious deterioration" be caused by imports from another 
EU member state.  Her second question was on Article 38, which appeared to provide a mechanism 
for enforcing adherence to the Accession Treaty.  She wondered whether the EC could define what 
was envisioned by the phrase "serious breach in the functioning of"; provide a description of the types 
of "appropriate measures" that might be taken; a nd whether any measures had been taken under that 
provision to date.  The representa tive of the European Communities  asked that the questions be 
submitted in writing, given the sens itive nature of these issues, internally.  He would transmit the 
questions to the Commission's and the Council's lega l services since they invo lved interpretation of 
the relevant articles. 
21. The representative of Australia  was interested in knowing how existing anti-dumping duties 
to third parties had been handled in the Enlargem ent.  On that point, the representative of the 
United States  remarked that prior to the Enlargement, no anti-dumping measures had been in effect on 
United States' exports to the Czech Republic, Est onia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, 
Poland, Slovenia and the Slovak Republic.  Following their adoption of the EC's common commercial 
policy, all of the EU's existing anti-dumping a nd countervailing measures had been automatically 
extended to their imports from the United States.  One anti-dumping measure against United States' 
exports of ethanolamine had been ex tended to cover all the ten new me mber states, leading to a more 
restrictive regime after Enlargement for imports not subject to anti-dumping duties before accession.  
While acknowledging that the amount of trade in ethanolamine was not very significant, she 
considered this automatic extension of anti-dumpi ng measures as a systemic issue.  It potentially 
affected all Members and did inevitably lead to a more-restrictive incidence of duties and other 
regulations of commerce in the enlarged EU.  She added that the Commission's offer to review anti-
dumping and countervailing duty measures did not address the objection against such automatic 
extension; furthermore, the initiatives of review had come from exporting ends which was both unfair, 
and impractical in some instances.  She indicated that the extension of anti-dumping and 
countervailing duty measures would have a trade stifling effect which the waiver could not eliminate.  
In sum, extending the anti-dumping and countervail ing duties on imports into the ten new members 
states, in the absence - at a minimum - of a revi ew of the change in circumstances upon accession was 
inconsistent with Article XXIV:5(a) of the GATT 1994, which prohibited the imposition of other 
regulations of commerce that were higher or more restrictive than those existing prior to the formation 
of such a customs union.  In that regard, she wa s interested in knowing what justification the EC 
could offer regarding the automatic extension of the anti-dumping and/or countervailing duty 
measures which had led to a more restrictive inci dence of duties and regulations to commerce.  
Several delegations expressed similar concerns.  The representative of Chile  was interested in 
knowing whether there were any concrete examples of  the implementation of a review of the change 
in circumstances mentioned earlier.  The representative of Hong Kong, China  was also interested in 
hearing the EU's justification for how the au tomatic extension of anti-dumping measures upon 
Enlargement and the Enlargement related review were consiste nt with the obligations under 
Article VI:6(a), Article XXIV:4 and 5(a) of  the GATT 1994.  The representative of China  shared the 
issues raised by the previous delegati ons.  The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that his country 
had substantial trade interests on this issue which ne eded further reflection.  However, noting that the 
Enlargement had taken place in May 2004 he wondered whether there had been any cases of 
Enlargement reviews and how many cases had been finalized.  The representative of the European  WT/REG170/M/1 
 Page 7 
 
 
 Communities  said that the EC, in line with WTO requirements, had extended trade defence 
instruments to the ten new member states whose meas ures had been eliminated.  He added that the EC 
had established a helpdesk for concerned exporters who wanted the review of a particular situation.  
Noting that several questions addressed the legal nature  of the justification for the extension of these 
measures to the new member states, he indicated th at he would pass these questions to his authorities 
in order to obtain a comprehensive reply.  On a more informal note, he pointed out that although the 
scale of the Enlargement had been huge in terms of the 100 million consumers added to the EU, the 
total amount of GDP added by the ten new member states was slightly smaller than that of the 
Netherlands alone.  That was a consideration that, notwithstanding the legal nature of the question, 
Members might want to pass on to their anti-dumping investigators and ask them whether adding, for 
instance, West Virginia to the United States in an  anti-dumping investigation would change anything.  
He reiterated that insofar as exporters expressed conc erns, there would be a review.  In that respect, he 
said that he would be providing the representativ e of Chinese Taipei with an updated list of the 
number of requests that had been received, so far, if any. 
22. The representative of Argentina  said that he had doubts on how to interpret the information 
contained in Section II:7 of the Standard Format; mo re details were needed on agricultural subsidies in 
order to have a better understanding of those aspects.  The represen tative of the European Communities  
recalled that his delegation would supply replies to the questions by Australia on exports subsidies; at 
that juncture, further specific que stions could be submitted and thes e would be replied to as long as 
they were relevant to the current review.  He rema rked that the information provided in the Standard 
Format consisted of a description of the EC internal  system designed to ensure that there was no unfair 
competition between various member states on the basi s of subsidies and state- aid; that was an area 
where the EC had gone quite far, even compared to  other big federal states in the world.  The 
representative of Argentina  said that he would be waiting for the EC's answers to Australia.  In his 
opinion, however, the Standard Format had to pr ovide a minimum of information concerning the 
operation of the Agreement, so as to avoid Member s asking unnecessary questions; he noted that in the 
case before them an entire chapte r was missing.  He acknowledged that  his Capital could ask questions 
in an open-ended way (e.g., they had formulated 70 qu estions in a trade policies review of the EC), but 
– he added - the point with respect to the current re view was to have sufficient information that would 
allow Members to understand in which direction the EC was heading and thereby be in a position to 
identify the issues that were of interest to them a nd ask pertinent questions.  The representative of the 
European Communities  recognized the point, while reiterati ng that his delegation would not be 
providing information that was not relevant to the cu rrent review.  He noted that the EC, as a Member 
of the WTO, did fulfil its notification requirements wi th respect to its Community policies.  He pointed 
out that what was on review at the current and subsequent sess ions of the Committee was the 
Enlargement.  That meant that they would provi de information, for instance, on how the common 
agricultural policy (CAP) was being implemented w ith respect to the integration of the ten new 
member states but not on general CAP reforms or other general EC policies.   The latter were not 
relevant to the scope of the current review.  He stre ssed that the EC had recently had its trade policies 
review and that the Committee was not the appr opriate forum to conduct that same exercise. 
23. The representative of the United States  said that although the Standard Format did not include 
applicable sector specific provisions she had two ques tions on agriculture.  First, she was interested in 
knowing how the EC intended to assure third countri es that the commitments on agricultural products 
(including tariff concessions, minimum accesses, tariff equivalencies, special safeguards, domestic 
supports and export subsidies) would not impair the existing Uruguay Round commitments.  Second, 
noting that aggregation would lead to substan tial increases in, and entitlement to, exports of 
subsidised products by EU member states to third countries, she wondered how that contributed to the 
objective of the Agreement on Agriculture to pr ovide for substantial progressive reductions in 
agricultural support and protection resulting in correc ting and preventing restrictions and distortions 
in world agricultural markets.  The re presentative of the European Communities  asked that the 
questions be submitted in writing. WT/REG170/M/1 
Page 8  
 
 D. G
ENERAL PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT  
24. The representative of the United States  asked the representative of the EC to describe the 
impact on third parties of the acce ssion of the new member states to  the Partnership Agreement with 
the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States.  The representative of the European Communities , 
noting that Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) were under ne gotiation and had not yet entered 
into force, asked the representative of the United St ates to clarify whether her question was about the 
way the new member states fitted into the existing negotiating mandates of the EU and how would they 
be affected by the final result; in this respect, he e xplained that the new member states would be fully 
enshrined by the future commitments under those ag reements and that the ne gotiating directives were 
fully applicable to them too.  The representative of the United States  said that she would submit the 
question in writing.  As a follow up to that  question, the representative of Colombia  sought clarification 
on how the new member states had assumed the EU -15 commitments with regard to the ACP Group, 
which consisted of long-sta nding unilateral preferences; she stressed  that this was an issue of concern 
to her country.  The representa tive of the European Communities  said that the EU was a customs union 
with certain supranational trade rules which applie d to all its members.  The exclusion of the new 
members states from these rules w ould have entailed a border between  them and the old members, but 
that was not the case given that the free circulati on of goods applied.  The extension of the Union's 
territorial scope did not therefore change the rule s of the customs union; it simply meant that those 
countries enjoying EU preferences, be these on a unila teral or reciprocal basis,  would be selling to a 
larger market.  The representative of Colombia  was interested in knowing how this affected countries 
that had trade relations with the ten new members and which wh ere now confronted with more 
restrictive market access conditions to those market s.  The representative of  the European Communities  
said that the question was related to the EC no tification (WT/REG/GEN/N/3) in 2004 of the various 
RTAs which had been repealed due to the Enlargem ent.  These included agreements between the EC 
and the new member states, among the new member states, and betw een the new member states and 
third parties.  He added that the new member stat es, by joining the EU were adopting the rights and 
obligations of the EU as whole; that implied that agreements between a new member state and a 
third party with whom the EU did not have an ag reement, such as the RT A between Estonia and the 
Ukraine, had also been repealed.  The representative of Colombia  said that her delegation would be 
submitting written questions in order to obtain further clarification on this and other points.  In that 
context, the Chairman  said that it would be interesting to know whether the waiver authorizing the 
EU-15 to grant unilateral preferences to th e ACP group of countries, as agreed by the 
WTO Membership in document WT/MIN(01)/15, also a pplied to the EU-25.  The representative of the 
European Communities , replying in the affirmative, reminded Members that the EC, i.e. the European 
Commission and its member states, was the only body responsible in the area of trade in goods.  The 
EPAs with the ACP countries, which would have to be put in place upon expiration of the waiver, 
would apply to all member states as  part of the EC's common commercia l policy.  On the same note, he 
remarked that the Enlargement had also extended th e scope of several RTAs already notified to, and 
reviewed by, the GATT/WTO; he cited, as an example, the agreement between the EC-15 and Chile, which had become EC-25 and Chile.  If the logic was not to extend those preferences, those RTAs 
would have to be re-notifie d, which was not the case. 
25. The Chairman
 said that the first round of examination of the goods aspects of the Treaty on 
Enlargement of the European Union had enabled the Committee to clarify a nu mber of questions but 
others were pending.  He invited those delegations wishing to ask questions to forward them in writing 
to the Secretariat by 23 September and Parties to submit replies  in writing no later than 31 October. 
26. The Committee took note  of the comments made. 
__________