RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/REG1/M/4 
WT/REG2/M/4 
WT/REG139/M/2 
7 April 2004 
 
 (04-1573) 
Committee on Regional Trade Agreements Thirty-Sixth Session  
 
 
EXAMINATION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND  
BULGARIA  EUROPE AGREEMENT, SERVICES;  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES AND 
THE CZECH REPUBLIC EUROPE AG REEMENT, SERVICES; EUROPEAN 
COMMUNITIES AND ROMANIA EUROPE AGREEMENT, SERVICES 
 
Note on the Meeting of 30 March 2004
 
 
Chairman Mr. S. Dalela (India) 
 
 1. The meeting was convened in document WTO/AIR/2276/Rev.1. 
2. Under Agenda Items C. VIII, IX and X of its Thirty-Sixth Session, the Committee on 
Regional Trade Agreements (hereinafter CRT A or the Committee) took up the second round of 
examination of the services aspects of the Europe  Agreements between the European Communities 
and Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, and Romania, respectively.   
3. The Chairman
 said that the proceedings of the fi rst round, which had taken place in the 
Thirty-Third Session of the Committee in Nove mber 2002, could be found in documents 
WT/REG1/M/3, WT/REG139/M/1 and WT/REG2/M/3, respectively.  Since then, the Parties had provided replies to questions put by delegatio ns, which had been circulated in documents 
WT/REG1/8, WT/REG139/2 and WT/REG2/7.  He pr oposed that the Committee consider the three 
Agreements together, it being understood that this would have no effect on the examination per se , as 
each Agreement would be judged on its own meri t and would have its ow n report with its own 
conclusions.  Given that the Committee had alread y had a round with discussions under each of the 
detailed headings of the Standard Format, contained in documents WT/REG1/7, WT/REG139/1 and WT/REG2/6, he proposed to open the floor for co mments and questions by broad section.   
4. The representative of Australia
 said that information on mode 1 and investment which the EC 
representative had undertaken to provide at th e CRTA meeting in November 2002, had not been 
received thus far.  She asked the Parties to provid e the information as promised.  The representative of 
the Czech Republic  replied that he would pass on the request for information. 
5. The representative of the United States  said that at the last meeting her delegation had asked 
for information on the liberalization which had taken place since the Agreements had come into effect 
in 1995.  The answer provided by the Parties was that the process had been taking place in parallel 
with the negotiations for EU membership scheduled  for 2007.  She wondered if the Parties could 
provide an update on the specific actions undertaken  by Bulgaria and Romania since the Agreements 
had been in effect for some nine y ears.  The representatives of Bulgaria  and Romania  said they had 
taken note of the questions and would analyse them  with respect to the replies already provided. 
6. The representative of Japan  said he had questions which applied to all three Agreements 
which he would submit in writing.  First, regarding the first bullet of Article 38 which appeared in all 
Agreements, and which read, for example, in the case of Romania, "the treatment accorded to workers WT/REG1/M/4 
WT/REG2/M/4 WT/REG139/M/2 
Page 2 
  
 of Romanian nationality, legally employed in the territory of a Member State shall be free from any 
discrimination based on nationality, as regards wo rking conditions, remunera tion or dismissal, as 
compared to its own nationals", he asked if there were any restrictions on nationals of Bulgaria, the 
Czech Republic and Romania to ente ring the EC member states and obtaining a work permit.  If 
restrictions were in place, he requested that details of them be provided.  Second, he asked whether the provision contained in the second bullet of Article  38 which related to the resident spouse and 
children of the worker employed in the territory of  the member state meant that the persons permitted 
to have access to the labour market under this Artic le also had access to the unskilled labour market.  
Third, assuming that the authority to grant entry a nd work permits rested with the respective member 
state of the EU rather than the EC, did this mean that in principle the commitments that the EC had 
made under GATS were equally applicable to Bulg aria, Romania or the Czech Republic for mode 4 
market access commitments and that no additional commitments had been made vis-à-vis  these three 
states under these Agreements other than those stipulated  in Article 38.  Fourth, in relation to Article 
42, he asked for details of the "existing facilities"  which, in the case of Romania, provided that 
"existing facilities for access to employment for Ro manian workers accorded by Member States under 
bilateral agreements ought to be pres erved and if possible improved".   
7. The representatives of Romania
 and the Czech Republic  said the Parties would prepare written 
responses to the questions.  
8. The representative of the United States  had a follow-up question in relation to the request 
submitted by her delegation for information on how th e Parties to the Agreements intended to publish 
certain laws which were to be approximations of EU laws in th e areas of banking law, company 
accounts and standards, financial services and so fo rth.  The reply provided had stated that the 
approximation of law would be a pplicable without discrimination and would be done in accordance 
with the procedures existing in each contracting pa rty.  She asked if the delegations present could 
provide more detail on how the publication of t hose laws would occur, in what context the 
approximation had already taken place, if there had already been a summary of these approximations and so forth.  The initial response provided was not  sufficient and she wondered if the Parties could 
provide more information on how the approximati on process worked (including summaries), given 
that these were important commitments as far as the GATS was concerned.  The representative of 
Bulgaria
 asked that the question be provided in writi ng to which the Parties would provide a written 
response. 
9. The representative of the United States  requested an elaboration of the rather succinct 
response which had been given to a question rela ting to Articles 45 and 51, which referred to a 
"limited period of time".  She agreed to provide  her question in writing.  The representative of 
Romania  replied that her delegation would look at  the question and reformulate the reply. 
10. The Chairman  said that the second round of examination of the services aspects of the Europe 
Agreements between the European Communities and Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Romania 
respectively, had allowed the Committee to clarify a number of issues, but some outstanding questions 
seemed to remain.   He requested delegations wishing to ask questions to forward them in writing to the Secretariat by 16 April 2004  and for the Parties to submit replies  in writing by not later than 28 
May 2004.  
11. The representative of the Czech Republic
 asked if a statement of the EC representative who 
was not present in the room could be included in the minutes.  The Chairman  replied that at this late 
stage it was not normal to have general statements by the Parties, but that the Parties were free to 
circulate statements to Members if they so wished.   WT/REG1/M/4 
 WT/REG2/M/4 
 WT/REG139/M/2 
 Page 3 
  
 12. Reacting to the Chairman
's suggestion that any request fo r additional information be dealt 
without holding another round of formal examination, the representative of Japan  said that his 
delegation did not object to ending the factual exam ination. He however pointed out that in view of 
the pending issues and the need for updates on the st atus of these Agreements after enlargement it 
may be necessary to have an update on these issues. 
13. In support of that view, the representative of the United States  said that she was of the opinion 
that there was no need to finalize the examination of these Agreements given the number of questions 
outstanding.  No updates had been received in the nine  years since the Agreements had been in effect.  
The representative of the Czech Republic  replied that the Agreements had not been under review for 
nine years but that they had been sent to th e Committee quite recently. The representative of the 
United States  said she was referring to the fact that th ere was a number of Agreements that the 
Committee was trying to decide what to do with give n that they were Agreements of those countries 
which would accede to the EU.  Her point was that these Agreements had been in effect since 1995 
and this was not a moot point since her colleagu es in the GATS Council had had some trouble finding 
out what was going on in the EC's Agreements with r espect to services.  She re iterated that there was 
no rush to close this examination. 
14. The representative of Romania  said that there was no rush as indeed no single examination 
had been completed during the years of the WTO, but that it would be better to have the same 
procedure for these Agreements as for others.  It sh ould be possible to contin ue to receive questions 
and then consider the examination closed .  The representative of the Czech Republic  concurred with 
the representative of Romania and said that these were standard European agreements. 
15. Given that a number of questions remained outstanding, the Chairman  proposed that the 
Committee look at the responses and see what appro ach should be taken with respect to these 
Agreements.  The next course of action c ould be decided at the next meeting. 
16.  The Committee took note  of the comments made. 
__________