# Official Journal C 129/26 M

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 129 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4826 May 2005 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 129

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4826 May 2005

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 129/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2005/C 129/2 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3543 — PKN Orlen/Unipetrol) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2005/C 129/3 | Strategy for the enforcement of intellectual property rights in third countries | 3 |
| 2005/C 129/4 | Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of silicon carbide originating in the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine and of an interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of silicon carbide originating in the Russian Federation | 17 |
| 2005/C 129/5 | Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of ethyl alcohol originating in Guatemala and Pakistan | 22 |
| 2005/C 129/6 | Uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) (Classification of goods) | 26 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2005/C 129/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2005/C 129/2

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3543 — PKN Orlen/Unipetrol) (
  1
  )

1

2

2005/C 129/3

Strategy for the enforcement of intellectual property rights in third countries

3

2005/C 129/4

Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of silicon carbide originating in the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine and of an interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of silicon carbide originating in the Russian Federation

17

2005/C 129/5

Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of ethyl alcohol originating in Guatemala and Pakistan

22

2005/C 129/6

Uniform application of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) (Classification of goods)

26

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2005/C 129/7 | Amendment to the notice of invitation for the refund on export of wholly milled and parboiled long-grain B rice to certain third countries (OJ C 290, 27.11.2004) | 27 |

III   Notices

Commission

2005/C 129/7

Amendment to the notice of invitation for the refund on export of wholly milled and parboiled long-grain B rice to certain third countries (OJ C 290, 27.11.2004)

(OJ C 290, 27.11.2004)

27

| | Corrigenda |
| --- | --- |
| 2005/C 129/8 | Corrigendum to the Rules of the Administrative Commission on social security for migrant workers attached to the Commission of the European Communities (OJ C 119, 20.5.2005) | 28 |

Corrigenda

2005/C 129/8

Corrigendum to the Rules of the Administrative Commission on social security for migrant workers attached to the Commission of the European Communities (OJ C 119, 20.5.2005)

(OJ C 119, 20.5.2005)

28

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

I Information

Commission

| 26.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

25 May 2005

(2005/C 129/01)

1 euro=

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2564 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 135,33 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4468 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,68785 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1783 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5458 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 81,11 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,0560 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9555 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5767 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 30,546 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 255,18 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6960 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1834 |
| ROL | Romanian leu | 36 175 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,52 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 39,215 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7455 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6528 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5831 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,7770 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7648 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0828 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 257,28 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 8,2404 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,3986 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3151 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 906,27 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,774 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 68,392 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 35,2300 |
| THB | Thai baht | 50,486 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2564

JPY

Japanese yen

135,33

DKK

Danish krone

7,4468

GBP

Pound sterling

0,68785

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1783

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5458

ISK

Iceland króna

81,11

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,0560

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9555

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5767

CZK

Czech koruna

30,546

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

255,18

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6960

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1834

ROL

Romanian leu

36 175

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,52

SKK

Slovak koruna

39,215

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7455

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6528

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5831

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,7770

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7648

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0828

KRW

South Korean won

1 257,28

ZAR

South African rand

8,2404

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,3986

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3151

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 906,27

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,774

PHP

Philippine peso

68,392

RUB

Russian rouble

35,2300

THB

Thai baht

50,486

---

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 26.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3543 — PKN Orlen/Unipetrol)

(2005/C 129/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 20 April 2005, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition web site (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This web site provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3543. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32005M3543. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---

| 26.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/3

---

Strategy for the enforcement of intellectual property rights in third countries

(2005/C 129/03)

INTRODUCTION

Violations of intellectual property rights (IPR) continue to increase, having reached, in recent years, industrial proportions. This happens despite the fact that, by now, most of the WTO members have adopted legislation implementing minimum standards of IPR enforcement. It is, therefore, essential for the European Union to increasingly focus on vigorous and effective implementation of the enforcement legislation.

This Strategy intends to be a contribution to the improvement of the situation in third countries. It is a logical sequence of recent initiatives like the Enforcement Directive (1), that will harmonize enforcement legislation within the European Union, and the revision of the Customs Regulation (2), that provides action against counterfeit or pirated goods at the Community's border.

The purposes of the Strategy are to:

| — | Provide a long-term line of action for the Commission with the goal of achieving a significant reduction of the level of IPR violations in third countries; |
| --- | --- |

—

Provide a long-term line of action for the Commission with the goal of achieving a significant reduction of the level of IPR violations in third countries;

| — | Describe, prioritise and coordinate the mechanisms available to the Commission services for achieving their goal (3); |
| --- | --- |

—

Describe, prioritise and coordinate the mechanisms available to the Commission services for achieving their goal (3);

| — | Inform right-holders and other entities concerned of the means and actions already available and to be implemented, and raise their awareness for the importance of their participation. |
| --- | --- |

—

Inform right-holders and other entities concerned of the means and actions already available and to be implemented, and raise their awareness for the importance of their participation.

| — | Enhance cooperation with right-holders and other private entities concerned, by seeking their input on the identification of priorities and establishing public-private partnerships in fields like technical assistance, information to the public, etc. |
| --- | --- |

—

Enhance cooperation with right-holders and other private entities concerned, by seeking their input on the identification of priorities and establishing public-private partnerships in fields like technical assistance, information to the public, etc.

This Strategy does not intend to:

| — | Impose unilateral solutions to the problem — It is clear that, ultimately, any proposed solutions will only be effective if they are prioritised and considered to be important by the recipient country. The Commission is ready to assist in the creation of such conditions. |
| --- | --- |

—

Impose unilateral solutions to the problem — It is clear that, ultimately, any proposed solutions will only be effective if they are prioritised and considered to be important by the recipient country. The Commission is ready to assist in the creation of such conditions.

| — | Propose a one-size-fits-all approach to promoting IPR enforcement — It will be necessary to have a flexible approach that takes into account different needs, level of development, membership or not of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and main problems in terms of IPR (country of production, transit or consumption of infringing goods) of the countries in question. |
| --- | --- |

—

Propose a one-size-fits-all approach to promoting IPR enforcement — It will be necessary to have a flexible approach that takes into account different needs, level of development, membership or not of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and main problems in terms of IPR (country of production, transit or consumption of infringing goods) of the countries in question.

| — | Copy other models of IPR enforcement or create alliances against certain countries — The Commission is ready and willing to improve cooperation and to create synergies with countries sharing its concerns and facing similar problems. It is, however, important that this strategy remains primarily focussed on positive and constructive efforts. |
| --- | --- |

—

Copy other models of IPR enforcement or create alliances against certain countries — The Commission is ready and willing to improve cooperation and to create synergies with countries sharing its concerns and facing similar problems. It is, however, important that this strategy remains primarily focussed on positive and constructive efforts.

PROPOSED ACTIONS TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEM

1.   Identifying the priority countries

It is important to identify a limited number of countries on which the efforts of the Commission in the framework of the present strategy should be concentrated (cf. Annex I, section 4). The human and financial resources allocated to the enforcement of IPR (4) being limited, it is unrealistic to pretend that our action can extend equally to all, or even most, of the countries where piracy and counterfeiting occur. Therefore, a mechanism to assess which are the most problematic countries/regions, or those where the action of the Community is most urgently required, will be an essential tool for the successful implementation of this strategy.

At the end of 2002, the Commission launched a survey to assess the situation in third countries regarding violations and enforcement of IPR (5). By identifying with more accuracy the problems, the survey provided a diagnostic that allowed the Commission to develop the present strategy. At the same time, it gave substantial information to help identify those countries on which the priorities should be focused and to which the bulk of our limited resources should be allocated.

Specific actions:

| — | Put in place a mechanism that will periodically conduct an exercise similar to the ‘Survey on Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Third Countries’, based on a questionnaire distributed to entities like Commission Delegations, Embassies of Member States, right-holders and associations, Chambers of Commerce, etc. Replies will be analysed and results made available to the public. Such results, in conjunction with other reliable sources of information available to the Commission (6), should be the basis for renewing the list of the priority countries for the subsequent period. |
| --- | --- |

—

Put in place a mechanism that will periodically conduct an exercise similar to the ‘Survey on Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Third Countries’, based on a questionnaire distributed to entities like Commission Delegations, Embassies of Member States, right-holders and associations, Chambers of Commerce, etc. Replies will be analysed and results made available to the public. Such results, in conjunction with other reliable sources of information available to the Commission (6), should be the basis for renewing the list of the priority countries for the subsequent period.

2.   Multilateral/Bilateral agreements

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) (7) has a detailed chapter dedicated to the setting of minimum standards of IPR enforcement and technical cooperation. It also provides for a structure responsible for monitoring the implementation of the provisions of the Agreement and for consultation between Members, i.e. the TRIPs Council. Finally, it puts in place a dispute prevention and settlement mechanism. These characteristics make TRIPs one of the most adequate and effective instruments to address problems related to IPR violations.

The numerous bilateral agreements established by the European Community contain a chapter dedicated to IP. This chapter usually establishes that a very high standard of protection of IP (including the enforcement thereof) must be achieved. Most agreements also include a clause allowing for technical cooperation in this field. These clauses must be carefully monitored and effectively implemented, notably with respect to the more ‘problematic’ countries.

The institutional structures of these multilateral and bilateral agreements (TRIPs Council, Association Councils, the World Intellectual Property Organisation — WIPO, etc.) can be used to monitor and discuss legislation and enforcement problems from a very early stage. They allow for a structured political dialogue and can act as fora to submit new initiatives or to act as ‘early warning’ for arising problems, before there is a need to adopt stricter measures.

It is also envisaged to make the enforcement clauses in future bilateral or bi-regional agreements more operational and to clearly define what the EU regards as the highest international standards in this area and what kind of efforts it expects from its trading partners.

Specific actions:

| — | The EU will consult other trading partners regarding the possibility of launching an initiative in the TRIPs Council highlighting the fact that the implementation of TRIPs requirements in national laws has proven to be insufficient to combat piracy and counterfeiting, and that the TRIPs Agreement itself has several shortcomings. |
| --- | --- |

—

The EU will consult other trading partners regarding the possibility of launching an initiative in the TRIPs Council highlighting the fact that the implementation of TRIPs requirements in national laws has proven to be insufficient to combat piracy and counterfeiting, and that the TRIPs Agreement itself has several shortcomings.

| — | For example, the TRIPs Council could consider in the future a number of actions to tackle the situation, including the extension of the obligation to make available customs measures to goods in transit and for export (8). |
| --- | --- |

—

For example, the TRIPs Council could consider in the future a number of actions to tackle the situation, including the extension of the obligation to make available customs measures to goods in transit and for export (8).

| — | Ensure a continued effort in the monitoring of the TRIPs compliance of legislation, in particular in the ‘priority’ countries. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ensure a continued effort in the monitoring of the TRIPs compliance of legislation, in particular in the ‘priority’ countries.

| — | Revisit the approach to the IPR chapter of bilateral agreements, including the clarification and strengthening of the enforcement clauses. Although in designing the rules for each specific negotiation it is important to take into account the situation and the capacity of our partners, instruments such as the new EU Directive harmonising the enforcement of IPR within the Community, as well as the new customs' Regulation on counterfeit and pirated goods may constitute an important source of inspiration and a useful benchmark. |
| --- | --- |

—

Revisit the approach to the IPR chapter of bilateral agreements, including the clarification and strengthening of the enforcement clauses. Although in designing the rules for each specific negotiation it is important to take into account the situation and the capacity of our partners, instruments such as the new EU Directive harmonising the enforcement of IPR within the Community, as well as the new customs' Regulation on counterfeit and pirated goods may constitute an important source of inspiration and a useful benchmark.

| — | Raise more systematically enforcement concerns at Summit meetings and in the Councils/Committees created in the framework of these bilateral agreements. In order to allow the Commission to obtain an effective reaction from its counterparts, it is essential that it receives credible and detailed information from right-holders, either directly or via the EC Delegation or the embassies of the Member States in the countries concerned. |
| --- | --- |

—

Raise more systematically enforcement concerns at Summit meetings and in the Councils/Committees created in the framework of these bilateral agreements. In order to allow the Commission to obtain an effective reaction from its counterparts, it is essential that it receives credible and detailed information from right-holders, either directly or via the EC Delegation or the embassies of the Member States in the countries concerned.

3.   Political dialogue

The Commission must make clear to its trading partners that effective protection of IP, at least at the level set in TRIPs, is absolutely essential, and that the first step for fighting piracy and counterfeiting is an adequate level of enforcement at the source, i.e. in the countries where these goods are produced and exported. The Commission will also emphasize that effective enforcement is in most cases of mutual interest, be it for health or consumer reasons, or more broadly for these countries attractiveness to foreign investment. In its contacts, at different levels with the authorities of the countries concerned, the Commission must strongly convey the message that it is willing to assist them in raising the level of enforcement, but also that it will not refrain from using the instruments at its disposal in cases where deficient enforcement is harming its right-holders.

In addition, the Commission is increasing its cooperation with countries heavily affected by this type of practices and that share the Community's concerns, like Japan. This will result in an increased exchange of information and even in participation in joint initiatives in third countries. In addition, such ‘joint ventures’ should produce a rationalisation of resources between countries sharing identical concerns and pursuing parallel initiatives.

Finally, the EC Delegations in the ‘problematic’ countries can play an important role, by establishing close links with the local enforcement entities, with the Community right-holders operating in these countries and with the embassies of EU Member States and other countries concerned.

Specific actions:

| — | The message ‘improve your enforcement’ should be repeated, as frequently and at as high a level as possible, in the Commission's contacts with authorities of the countries in question and in all appropriate fora, notably the WTO and WIPO. It must be perceived as a priority concern. |
| --- | --- |

—

The message ‘improve your enforcement’ should be repeated, as frequently and at as high a level as possible, in the Commission's contacts with authorities of the countries in question and in all appropriate fora, notably the WTO and WIPO. It must be perceived as a priority concern.

| — | This commitment to include IPR enforcement in the political dialogue is illustrated by the following initiatives: |
| --- | --- |

—

This commitment to include IPR enforcement in the political dialogue is illustrated by the following initiatives:

| — | At the EU — Japan Summit of 2003, the Commission and Japan agreed to establish an improved dialogue in a number of areas, including IPR. An ‘EU — Japan Joint Initiative for IPR Enforcement in Asia’ was established, focusing on elements like (a) the close follow-up of the progress of Asian countries in the field; (b) coordinating technical assistance programmes and responsibilities; (c) enhancing EU-Japan efforts to raise awareness in the fight against piracy and counterfeiting and to promote the strengthening of IPR enforcement; (d) exploring the possibility to cooperate in other areas of IPR. The initiative is implemented by an Annual Work Plan containing specific activities. |
| --- | --- |

—

At the EU — Japan Summit of 2003, the Commission and Japan agreed to establish an improved dialogue in a number of areas, including IPR. An ‘EU — Japan Joint Initiative for IPR Enforcement in Asia’ was established, focusing on elements like (a) the close follow-up of the progress of Asian countries in the field; (b) coordinating technical assistance programmes and responsibilities; (c) enhancing EU-Japan efforts to raise awareness in the fight against piracy and counterfeiting and to promote the strengthening of IPR enforcement; (d) exploring the possibility to cooperate in other areas of IPR. The initiative is implemented by an Annual Work Plan containing specific activities.

| — | The Commission and China agreed in the margins of the 2003 EU-China Summit to hold, at least once a year, a ‘EU-China Dialogue on Intellectual Property’. Among other issues, the discussions should focus on efforts to combat piracy and counterfeiting, institutional reforms, enforcement-related areas such as central and sub-central enforcement by customs, police, administrative and judiciary bodies, public awareness of consumers and right-holders. The first meeting took place in October 2004. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission and China agreed in the margins of the 2003 EU-China Summit to hold, at least once a year, a ‘EU-China Dialogue on Intellectual Property’. Among other issues, the discussions should focus on efforts to combat piracy and counterfeiting, institutional reforms, enforcement-related areas such as central and sub-central enforcement by customs, police, administrative and judiciary bodies, public awareness of consumers and right-holders. The first meeting took place in October 2004.

| — | Basic training will be provided to officials in priority Delegations so that they can offer a minimum of information to entities with enforcement problems. The idea is to create some networking between Commission officials in Delegations and to establish closer teamwork between Delegations and the Headquarters. Teamwork will facilitate the compilation of information and the definition of targeted actions for the different countries and/or for a regional approach. |
| --- | --- |

—

Basic training will be provided to officials in priority Delegations so that they can offer a minimum of information to entities with enforcement problems. The idea is to create some networking between Commission officials in Delegations and to establish closer teamwork between Delegations and the Headquarters. Teamwork will facilitate the compilation of information and the definition of targeted actions for the different countries and/or for a regional approach.

4.   Incentives/Technical cooperation

Most of the countries with deficient enforcement will claim a lack of resources and the existence of more pressing priorities than protecting IP rights. IP enforcement is a complex and multi-disciplinary activity. It involves drafting legislation, training judges, police forces, customs officials and other experts, setting up agencies or task-forces, public awareness raising, etc. Most of these needs can be, and to some extent already have been, addressed by the Commission via technical cooperation programmes, but it is important to do more and better.

Technical assistance is an activity favoured by the EU for its contribution towards poverty alleviation and development. It is thus important to show that adequate IPR enforcement can contribute to this goal by making a link with investment opportunities, transfer of technology and know-how, protection of traditional knowledge, improvement of health and safety standards, etc.

It will be necessary to have a flexible approach that takes into account the recipient country's different needs, level of development, membership or not of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), and main problems in terms of IPR (country of production, transit or consumption of fake goods). Any cooperation programmes will only be effective if they are prioritised and indeed felt as important in the recipient country.

It is also relevant to share information and to ensure a minimum level of synergy between the main providers of technical assistance, such as WIPO, the World Customs Organisation (WCO), the Member States and third countries like Japan, the US and others.

Finally, the following difficulties must be stressed:

| (a) | In most cases, technical cooperation is ‘demand driven’, i.e. it requires a request by the beneficiary of the action. It is important to turn it into a ‘dialogue driven’ request, by discussing its importance and benefits for the recipient. |
| --- | --- |

(a)

In most cases, technical cooperation is ‘demand driven’, i.e. it requires a request by the beneficiary of the action. It is important to turn it into a ‘dialogue driven’ request, by discussing its importance and benefits for the recipient.

| (b) | It is a mid to long-term solution, with few immediate results. However, the present strategy is a long term one, and adequate enforcement is a goal that will not be achieved only by immediate actions, in particular in the case of least-developed countries, not yet bound by TRIPs requirements. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

It is a mid to long-term solution, with few immediate results. However, the present strategy is a long term one, and adequate enforcement is a goal that will not be achieved only by immediate actions, in particular in the case of least-developed countries, not yet bound by TRIPs requirements.

| (c) | Implementing the programmes implies a complex administrative process. This is why further strengthening coordination between the Commission services responsible for the different aspects of IPR enforcement and between the Commission and third parties is an essential component of the present strategy. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

Implementing the programmes implies a complex administrative process. This is why further strengthening coordination between the Commission services responsible for the different aspects of IPR enforcement and between the Commission and third parties is an essential component of the present strategy.

Specific actions:

| — | Ensure that, at least, the countries identified as priorities are given the option to include intellectual property in the trade-related technical assistance programmes or to obtain specific IP programmes. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ensure that, at least, the countries identified as priorities are given the option to include intellectual property in the trade-related technical assistance programmes or to obtain specific IP programmes.

| — | In particular, the Commission would like to extend technical assistance to Latin America, since it is a region where enforcement can certainly be improved and where no programme is in place. |
| --- | --- |

—

In particular, the Commission would like to extend technical assistance to Latin America, since it is a region where enforcement can certainly be improved and where no programme is in place.

| — | There are a number of programmes that cover IPR. Some, like ECAP (9) I and II, for the ASEAN countries, or even the recently concluded EU-China IPR programme are specifically destined to provide assistance on IPR. Others are generally designed to cover trade related issues, but may include IPR among their objectives — WTO II (10) and Small Project Facility (11), for China; technical cooperation programmes under the framework of the Cotonou Agreement for the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries; or the CARDS (12) programme, for the countries of the Balkans. The Commission will ensure that the component of IPR enforcement is adequately covered by these programmes. |
| --- | --- |

—

There are a number of programmes that cover IPR. Some, like ECAP (9) I and II, for the ASEAN countries, or even the recently concluded EU-China IPR programme are specifically destined to provide assistance on IPR. Others are generally designed to cover trade related issues, but may include IPR among their objectives — WTO II (10) and Small Project Facility (11), for China; technical cooperation programmes under the framework of the Cotonou Agreement for the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries; or the CARDS (12) programme, for the countries of the Balkans. The Commission will ensure that the component of IPR enforcement is adequately covered by these programmes.

| — | In the case of ‘production’ countries, the focus in any cooperation programmes must shift from assistance in drafting legislation to a more enforcement-oriented strategy, including training programmes for judges, police, and customs. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the case of ‘production’ countries, the focus in any cooperation programmes must shift from assistance in drafting legislation to a more enforcement-oriented strategy, including training programmes for judges, police, and customs.

| — | It must be pointed out that this practice is already being successfully implemented in the specific field of customs (DG TAXUD). There are a number of customs cooperation agreements that, inter alia, cover an essential tool of IPR enforcement (customs controls of fake goods). These agreements with countries like India and China (a new one is soon to be concluded) produce positive results in terms of training and of passing on our experience and methods to these countries. Furthermore, they illustrate how one can build on the existing TRIPs requirements (cf. the control of exports and goods in transit, in addition to the control of imports). It is likely that a similar agreement may be established with Japan still in 2004. |
| --- | --- |

—

It must be pointed out that this practice is already being successfully implemented in the specific field of customs (DG TAXUD). There are a number of customs cooperation agreements that, inter alia, cover an essential tool of IPR enforcement (customs controls of fake goods). These agreements with countries like India and China (a new one is soon to be concluded) produce positive results in terms of training and of passing on our experience and methods to these countries. Furthermore, they illustrate how one can build on the existing TRIPs requirements (cf. the control of exports and goods in transit, in addition to the control of imports). It is likely that a similar agreement may be established with Japan still in 2004.

| — | Exchange ideas and information with other key providers of technical cooperation, like WIPO, the US, Japan and certain EU Member States, with the aim of avoiding duplication of efforts and sharing of best-practices. |
| --- | --- |

—

Exchange ideas and information with other key providers of technical cooperation, like WIPO, the US, Japan and certain EU Member States, with the aim of avoiding duplication of efforts and sharing of best-practices.

| — | Improve the dialogue mechanisms with: (a) the WCO (under the coordination of DG TAXUD) to assess the compatibility of their technical assistance with our positions and the complementarity with our programmes; (b) WIPO and other providers of assistance (the European Patent Office, the Office of the EU Trademarks and Designs, etc.) to share information and to better coordinate strategies. |
| --- | --- |

—

Improve the dialogue mechanisms with: (a) the WCO (under the coordination of DG TAXUD) to assess the compatibility of their technical assistance with our positions and the complementarity with our programmes; (b) WIPO and other providers of assistance (the European Patent Office, the Office of the EU Trademarks and Designs, etc.) to share information and to better coordinate strategies.

| — | Technical cooperation is also an important element of the TRIPs Agreement (Article 67) and it ‘fits’ into the objectives of the Doha Development Agenda. It can be considered to take an enforcement-oriented initiative in this framework. |
| --- | --- |

—

Technical cooperation is also an important element of the TRIPs Agreement (Article 67) and it ‘fits’ into the objectives of the Doha Development Agenda. It can be considered to take an enforcement-oriented initiative in this framework.

5.   Dispute Settlement/Sanctions

No rule can be really effective without the threat of a sanction. Countries where IP violations are systematic, and where no government action to address the problem is effectively taken, could be publicly identified. As a last resort, consideration should be given to resorting to dispute settlement mechanisms provided for in multilateral and bilateral agreements.

The existing Trade Barriers Regulation (TBR) mechanism (13) could be a starting-point. TBR is a legal instrument that gives the right to Community enterprises and industries to lodge a complaint, which obliges the Commission to investigate and evaluate whether there is evidence of violation of international trade rules resulting in adverse trade effects. The result is that the procedure will lead to either a mutually agreed solution to the problem or recourse to dispute settlement.

The TBR has a broad scope of application, covering not only goods but also, to some extent, intellectual property rights and services, when the violation of rules concerning these rights has an impact on trade between the EC and a third country.

Resort to other trade related mechanisms could also be considered. For instance, the EU includes similar instruments in an increasing number of bilateral agreements that will be triggered in cases of non-compliance with the required high(est) standards of IP protection.

Deficient enforcement derives more frequently from the way the rules are (not) de facto implemented by the competent authorities than from an absence of legislation or a blatant contradiction of legislation with TRIPs requirements. However, when such deficiencies become systemic, they can substantiate a dispute settlement case.

Specific actions:

| — | Remind right-holders of the possibility to make use of the TBR mechanism in cases of evidence of violation of TRIPs or of the high(est) standards as agreed in bilateral agreements between the EC and third countries. This mechanism is launched by the lodging of a complaint. |
| --- | --- |

—

Remind right-holders of the possibility to make use of the TBR mechanism in cases of evidence of violation of TRIPs or of the high(est) standards as agreed in bilateral agreements between the EC and third countries. This mechanism is launched by the lodging of a complaint.

| — | The Commission is ready, in clearly justified cases, to make ex officio use of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and of the similar dispute settlement tools included in our bilateral agreements in case of non-compliance with the mutually accepted standards of IP protection. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission is ready, in clearly justified cases, to make ex officio use of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism and of the similar dispute settlement tools included in our bilateral agreements in case of non-compliance with the mutually accepted standards of IP protection.

| — | Consider other mechanisms which could be used to reduce the level of IPR violations in third countries. |
| --- | --- |

—

Consider other mechanisms which could be used to reduce the level of IPR violations in third countries.

6.   Creation of public-private partnerships

There are numerous companies and associations which have been active in the fight against piracy/counterfeiting for many years. They constitute an invaluable source of information, but also a key partner for any awareness raising initiatives. Some of these entities are already present, and very active, in most problematic countries.

Other than the specific actions now proposed, there are within the Commission other examples of initiatives to create public-private partnerships that are directly or indirectly linked with IPR enforcement.

One of these projects involved the creation of Innovation Relay Centres, to support companies dealing with transfers of technology (14). This project includes people with extensive experience in the IPR area (licensing, transfer of IP rights, etc) and could be used to collect information about enforcement problems in third countries. So far the network only covers the EU, but consideration is being given to extending it to third countries. There is a pilot project with an office in Chile.

There is also already in place the ‘IPR Help-Desk’ (15), a project sponsored by the Commission to support creativity and innovation. The purpose of the Help-Desk is not to handle complaints but to provide information to the EU industry. It may therefore give guidance to companies facing violations of their rights in third countries.

Finally, the Commission has a long experience of involving private operators in their seminars and training programmes covering, in particular, border enforcement of IPR.

Specific actions:

| — | Support the creation of local IP networks involving companies, associations and chambers of commerce. This practice is already being implemented in certain key countries and will be actively supported by DG TRADE. |
| --- | --- |

—

Support the creation of local IP networks involving companies, associations and chambers of commerce. This practice is already being implemented in certain key countries and will be actively supported by DG TRADE.

| — | Improve cooperation with companies and associations that are active in the fight against piracy/counterfeiting, inter alia by exchanging information about future initiatives and ensuring the cross-participation of experts from the Commission and from private entities in events organised by the other party. |
| --- | --- |

—

Improve cooperation with companies and associations that are active in the fight against piracy/counterfeiting, inter alia by exchanging information about future initiatives and ensuring the cross-participation of experts from the Commission and from private entities in events organised by the other party.

7.   Awareness raising/Drawing on our own experience

Providing better information to the public is another very relevant dimension of the Strategy. This can be divided into the following components:

| (a) | Raising the awareness of users/consumers in third countries. This must be done from two perspectives: (a) to promote the benefits of IPR in terms of promotion of creativity, investment, transfer of technology, protection of traditions and quality; (b) to inform about the dangers of IPR violations to public health, consumer protection, public security, etc. |
| --- | --- |

(a)

Raising the awareness of users/consumers in third countries. This must be done from two perspectives: (a) to promote the benefits of IPR in terms of promotion of creativity, investment, transfer of technology, protection of traditions and quality; (b) to inform about the dangers of IPR violations to public health, consumer protection, public security, etc.

| (b) | Raising the awareness of right-holders. Again from two different perspectives: (a) the risks incurred by trading in certain countries where IPR enforcement is ineffective and the minimum precautions that must be adopted, like registering the IP right in those countries (frequently, small and medium sized companies do not even apply for the protection of their intellectual property in third countries where they are producing or selling their goods); (b) the need to use the means available in these third countries to enforce their rights. Countries which are members of the WTO (with the exception of least-developed countries) must have implemented minimum standards of IP protection and enforcement since 2000. It is clear that the first steps to protect and enforce IPRs must be taken by the right-holders themselves, and that they must use, to the maximum extent, the available mechanisms before being entitled to legitimately complain about the effectiveness of such protection and enforcement. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

Raising the awareness of right-holders. Again from two different perspectives: (a) the risks incurred by trading in certain countries where IPR enforcement is ineffective and the minimum precautions that must be adopted, like registering the IP right in those countries (frequently, small and medium sized companies do not even apply for the protection of their intellectual property in third countries where they are producing or selling their goods); (b) the need to use the means available in these third countries to enforce their rights. Countries which are members of the WTO (with the exception of least-developed countries) must have implemented minimum standards of IP protection and enforcement since 2000. It is clear that the first steps to protect and enforce IPRs must be taken by the right-holders themselves, and that they must use, to the maximum extent, the available mechanisms before being entitled to legitimately complain about the effectiveness of such protection and enforcement.

Specific actions:

| — | The Commission does not have the resources to pursue alone extensive awareness raising campaigns in third countries. However, this activity could be implemented by some of the abovementioned means, i.e. by inclusion in existing technical cooperation programmes and by public-private partnerships. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission does not have the resources to pursue alone extensive awareness raising campaigns in third countries. However, this activity could be implemented by some of the abovementioned means, i.e. by inclusion in existing technical cooperation programmes and by public-private partnerships.

| — | The Commission services sponsored the drafting of a ‘Guidebook on Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights’. This Guidebook is mainly intended to assist public authorities of developing and least developed countries in their efforts to put in place systems and procedures for the effective enforcement of IPR. In particular, the guidebook considers the most common difficulties confronting those countries in the enforcement of IPR and provides guidance on how to achieve effective and long-lasting protection for such rights. The guidebook identifies useful resources which may be of assistance to authorities and right-holders facing difficulties. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission services sponsored the drafting of a ‘Guidebook on Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights’. This Guidebook is mainly intended to assist public authorities of developing and least developed countries in their efforts to put in place systems and procedures for the effective enforcement of IPR. In particular, the guidebook considers the most common difficulties confronting those countries in the enforcement of IPR and provides guidance on how to achieve effective and long-lasting protection for such rights. The guidebook identifies useful resources which may be of assistance to authorities and right-holders facing difficulties.

| — | The Guidebook will be publicly available through the Commission website. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Guidebook will be publicly available through the Commission website.

8.   Institutional cooperation

The Commission services responsible for the different aspects of IPR enforcement will step up their coordination and cooperation with a view to enhancing the role of the Commission. Without creating an additional layer of bureaucracy, it is necessary to:

| (a) | further improve information exchange and coordination between the services in charge of the different aspects of IPR enforcement; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

further improve information exchange and coordination between the services in charge of the different aspects of IPR enforcement;

| (b) | simplify the identification and the access of external entities (right-holders, third country authorities, etc.) to the service responsible for the specific issue concerning them. |
| --- | --- |

(b)

simplify the identification and the access of external entities (right-holders, third country authorities, etc.) to the service responsible for the specific issue concerning them.

Specific actions:

| — | Inter-service meetings will be regularly organised to follow up the initiatives being implemented in the framework of the present strategy and to discuss the results obtained, as well as the inclusion of new initiatives. Furthermore, increased cooperation between the services involved with technical assistance issues will be introduced in order to promote IPR enforcement-related assistance to relevant third countries. |
| --- | --- |

—

Inter-service meetings will be regularly organised to follow up the initiatives being implemented in the framework of the present strategy and to discuss the results obtained, as well as the inclusion of new initiatives. Furthermore, increased cooperation between the services involved with technical assistance issues will be introduced in order to promote IPR enforcement-related assistance to relevant third countries.

| — | In order to help third parties understand the distribution of tasks among the different Commission services: |
| --- | --- |

—

In order to help third parties understand the distribution of tasks among the different Commission services:

| — | A new Commission webpage will be created, presenting: (a) the existing legislation to enforce IPR; (b) a vademecum on enforcement, including the Commission contact points for the various types of IP rights and aspects of their enforcement, as well as links to the various web-pages of the different services dealing with it. |
| --- | --- |

—

A new Commission webpage will be created, presenting: (a) the existing legislation to enforce IPR; (b) a vademecum on enforcement, including the Commission contact points for the various types of IP rights and aspects of their enforcement, as well as links to the various web-pages of the different services dealing with it.

| — | Cross-links will be inserted in the existing web-pages of each service dealing with certain aspects of IPR or certain sectors. |
| --- | --- |

—

Cross-links will be inserted in the existing web-pages of each service dealing with certain aspects of IPR or certain sectors.

| — | Ensure coordination with other Commission initiatives linked with IPR, such as the Innovation Relay Centres and the IPR Help-Desk, and their effective contribution to the objective of the present Strategy by collecting and distributing information vis-à-vis the private sector. |
| --- | --- |

—

Ensure coordination with other Commission initiatives linked with IPR, such as the Innovation Relay Centres and the IPR Help-Desk, and their effective contribution to the objective of the present Strategy by collecting and distributing information vis-à-vis the private sector.

---

(1)  Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004, is available at:

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2004/l_195/l_19520040602en00160025.pdf

(2)  Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 of 22 July 2003, is available at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/customs/counterfeit_piracy/files/counterfeit_en.pdf

(3)  This Strategy has no direct supplementary financial implications on the budget of the European Commission.

(4)  Reference to intellectual property rights in this paper is made in its wider meaning, i.e., including copyright and related rights, but also trademarks, patents, designs, geographical indications, undisclosed information, etc.

(5)  The complete results of the ‘Survey on Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Third Countries’, including a detailed report per country, for all the countries for which sufficient information was received, are available at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/issues/sectoral/intell_property/survey_en.htm

(6)  A valuable source of information about the origin, the itinerary and the nature of counterfeit and pirated goods destined to, or in transit via the Community are the annual statistics about the goods originating from third countries seized by Customs at the Community border. The report is released by DG TAXUD. The figures for 2003 can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/customs/counterfeit_piracy/index_en.htm

(7)  Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property, Annex 1C to the Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation (TRIPs, Marrakesh 1994).

(8)  Article 51 of the TRIPs Agreement only stipulates the obligation for Members to have in place customs measures for imported goods.

(9)  EC-ASEAN IPR Programme comprises a regional and a national component and covers all areas of IPR. It has a value of EUR 5 million. An additional EUR 2 million is planned, to take account of the inclusion of Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam. The project started in 2000 and has a duration of 5 years

(10)  WTO II is the largest WTO related support programme in China, with a value of EUR 15 million over 5 years — to which China has indicated willingness to contribute with an additional 30 %. A chapter on IPR will be proposed. The programme should be launched before the end of 2004.

(11)  Project designed to support small initiatives in China. With a total value of EUR 9,6 million, and a duration of 5 years, the initiatives are demand-driven, but the inclusion of IPR related projects will be actively encouraged.

(12)  In the framework of the Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and Stabilisation (CARDS) programme for the Western Balkans, a project called ‘Industrial and Intellectual Property Rights’ was launched in July 2003. The project will have a duration of 36 months and a value of EUR 2,25 million.

(13)  Council Regulation (EC) No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community's rights under international trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the WTO.

http://europa.eu.int/comm/trade/issues/respectrules/tbr/legis/adgreg06a.htm

(14)  This project is managed by DG ENTR. For more information see:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/innovation/networks.htm#irc

(15)  http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org

---

ANNEX I

BACKGROUND

1.   What is the problem?

The TRIPs Agreement establishes for the first time a single, comprehensive, multilateral set of rules covering all kinds of IPR. It contains also a detailed chapter setting minimum standards of IPR enforcement to be adopted by all members of the WTO.

However, despite the fact that, by now, most of the WTO members have adopted legislation implementing such minimum standards (1), the levels of piracy and counterfeiting continue to increase every year. These activities have, in recent years, assumed industrial proportions, because they offer considerable profit prospects with often a limited risk for the perpetrators.

It has thus become clearly insufficient to limit the efforts of the EC to merely monitoring the creation of general legislative frameworks in WTO member countries. It is essential that the EC increasingly focuses on vigorous and effective implementation of the enforcement legislation.

Within the Community and at its external borders there have been a number of important initiatives in recent years. As long ago as 1994 the EC adopted the so-called Customs Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 3295/94), allowing border control of imports of fake goods. Later, in 1998, the Commission issued its Green Paper on Combating Counterfeiting and Piracy in the Single Market. As a result of responses to the Green Paper, the Commission presented an Action Plan, on 30 November 2000. This Action Plan is materialising, namely in the form of a Directive harmonising the enforcement of intellectual property rights within the Community, of a Regulation improving the mechanisms for customs action against counterfeit or pirated goods set by the previous Customs Regulation, the extending of Europol's powers to cover piracy and counterfeiting and a study on a methodology for the collecting, analysing and comparing of data on counterfeiting and piracy (2). In addition, the Presidency Conclusions of the Spring European Council 2003 (3) made a strong call for the increase in the fight against piracy and counterfeiting. As a consequence, the Commission (DG JAI) intends to launch a legislative initiative in 2004 in the form of a proposal for a Council Framework Decision on approximation of national legislation and sanctions on counterfeiting and piracy.

The situation is, however, different outside the borders of the Community. The internal instruments available to Community right-holders in the case of violations of their rights within the Community or in the case of imports of fake goods into the EU are not usable when these violations occur in third countries and the resulting goods are either consumed domestically or exported to other third countries. Although such violations occur outside, they directly affect Community right-holders.

2.   Why and how much does it matter? To whom?

(a)   European Community

Violation of IPR, which is reflected in the presence on the market of increasing volumes of pirated and counterfeit goods, has a very negative impact in a number of different areas. The Community, being a market that traditionally invests heavily in IP-protected goods and services and receives considerable added-value for this effort, is particularly affected by poor enforcement of IP, even when it takes place in third countries, and even if the pirated/counterfeit goods or services are not destined for the Community market. These are some of the adverse effects of IP violations:

Economic and social: Deprives right-holders of the revenue from their investment in R&D, marketing, creative effort, quality control, etc. Negatively affects market-share, sales volume, reputation, employment and ultimately the viability of certain IP-based activities/companies. High levels of IPR violations also discourage foreign investment and transfer of technology.

Health and consumer protection: Pirated and counterfeit goods are usually produced by anonymous entities that pay no heed to health, safety and quality requirements and provide no after-sales assistance, guarantees, operating instructions, etc... Illustrating this problem are growing seizures of fake medications, food (and even bottled water), car and plane parts, electrical appliances and toys.

Public order and security: A growing concern in recent years is the increased involvement of criminal organisations and sometimes even of terrorist groups in major international trafficking of counterfeit and pirated goods. This is explained by the particularly lucrative nature of these activities and by the lower risk (4) compared with other lucrative criminal activities. The scale of the problem and the sums of money involved render the situation regarding piracy as complex to tackle as drug trafficking or money laundering. Europol, Interpol and a number of police forces in the Community have created departments dealing specifically with it.

Fiscal: Being an illegal and clandestine practice by nature, and having lower prices it frequently deprives the state from tax revenue (VAT, revenue taxes, customs duties). This issue is particularly sensitive in countries where there are economic sectors under strict state control, like tobacco, alcoholic drinks, fuel, etc.

(b)   Third countries

Why should third countries with little tradition in the IPR field, a restricted number of right-holders, and sometimes with a significant share of its industry and commerce benefiting from the violations, care?

The reply to this question is not entirely different from the one given for the Community (see above). The consequences of IPR violations in terms of consumer and health protection, organised crime and loss of fiscal revenue are relatively obvious and directly felt both in the Community and in the third countries where such violations predominantly occur. Consequently, these countries (should) have an immediate interest in combating piracy and counterfeiting.

Regarding the first point however (economic and social consequences), some will say that by enforcing the protection of IP rights held by Community companies, third countries will not obtain any direct benefit. It would appear, on the contrary, that they are using their resources to protect the investment of foreign entities (an argument frequently raised by certain countries). To counter this reasoning, the EC must get across the message that effective enforcement of IP rights (even if these belong to third parties) is an essential tool to attract foreign investment and the transfer of technology and know-how, as well as to protect local right-holders in developing and least-developed countries who are already suffering the misappropriation of their intellectual property (5). It is a matter of good governance and international credibility, not to mention the need to comply with WTO and other international and bilateral commitments. In the mid-to-long term, it will also encourage domestic authors, inventors and investors and contribute to the development of these countries.

Under-estimating the value of intellectual property rights contributes to ineffective enforcement. To enhance this aspect of the intellectual property rights system, it would be useful for some (fast) developing countries to assess the value of the industries based primarily on intellectual property rights (6). This could lead to an appreciation of the value of intellectual property rights in terms of a country's economic environment, as well as in respect to economic, social and cultural growth and development.

There are, however, recent examples of countries where the emergence of a competitive and increasingly sophisticated economy is making evident the need to efficiently protect IP against domestic and external violations.

In some of the most ‘problematic’ countries the authorities appear to be fully aware of the importance of IPR for the development of the country and domestic right-holders demand enforcement of IPR as rigorously as foreign right-holders. The problem is that the piracy/counterfeiting industry is an important element of their economy. It is therefore clear that there is a broader picture which cannot be tackled merely under the IP angle. Only a comprehensive policy involving authorities at national, regional and local level can provide a solution.

3.   Which IP rights are violated and which sectors are most affected?

Most of them. One frequent misconception is that piracy and counterfeiting mainly affect some luxury, sports and clothing brands, music and software CDs/DVDs, and little else. The reality is that virtually every IP is being violated on a considerable scale and that the variety of fake products ranges from cereal boxes to plants and seeds, from aeroplane spare parts to sunglasses, from cigarettes to medications, from AA batteries to entire petrol stations. Big software producers are as likely to be harmed as small makers of a certain type of tea. The annual statistics published by the Commission's customs services regarding the number and the nature of seized pirated and counterfeit goods originating from third countries provide detailed and reliable information about the dimension and the growth of the problem (7).

The Commission considers that the vast majority of the problems affecting holders of the different types of intellectual property rights are common and consequently, are most effectively addressed by an integrated strategy. The strategy now proposed aims at improving enforcement against violations of all kinds of IP (copyright, trademarks, geographical indications, patents, designs, etc.).

4.   How to define the ‘priority’ countries?

There are several different criteria to define the most problematic countries in terms of enforcement of IPR (8). These can be split into: (a) source countries; (b) transit countries, and (c) target countries. For each of these groups of countries, the type of measures most adequate to address the situation will differ.

(a)   Source countries

These are the countries where production of pirated and counterfeit goods, both for domestic consumption and for export, reaches worrying dimensions. In cases of digital piracy via the internet, the origin of the IPR violation can be particularly difficult to detect.

In these countries it is particularly important to improve the effectiveness and the coordination of the police, the courts, the customs and the administration in general. It is also essential to ensure that the legal framework provides for deterrent sanctions.

(b)   Transit countries

For the full picture, one should, however, not focus exclusively on countries violating IPR due to the massive production of counterfeited products occurring in their territories, but also on those often acting as a hub. This category includes countries appearing as major places of origin of fake goods seized in the Community, the problem occurring mainly because of the flow of fake products in transit and not because of domestic production of such goods. The large volume of goods originating in these countries is nevertheless indicative of deficient enforcement, at least at the level of border controls. Organised crime networks will take advantage of such weaknesses to establish different traffic routes, hiding the real origin of the goods.

Improving the availability of border measures and the effectiveness of customs authorities in particular regarding the transit of goods should help to substantially reduce the volume of traffic.

(c)   Target countries

It is also important to consider, in any strategy to reduce the violations of IPR, the countries identified as the main final destinations of exports of fake goods or serving primarily as a market for such products.

Substantial volumes of sales of fake goods occur in almost all countries. The difficulty of defining countries that are main markets for pirated goods is that it is a very widespread problem, albeit for a variety of (sometimes contradictory) reasons: because they are too poor to buy IP-protected protects, because such practice is accepted or at least not condemned, because they produce them in large quantities, because there is sometimes no way to distinguish between real and fake, or because fakes are cheaper. This is why it is necessary to concentrate resources on the main markets of the legitimate Community right-holders most affected by IPR violations.

Dealing with the consumption of pirated and counterfeit goods requires an effort in terms of building up public awareness about the negative impact and the risks of such practice. It also requires more effective customs controls of imported goods and a more effective reaction by the police and courts against those networks and individuals involved in large scale trading in such goods.

5.   What is the situation in the Community?

Generally speaking, the Community and its Member States are acknowledged for protecting and enforcing IPR to very high standards, as the acquis, and in particular the recent efforts described in point 1 above, can demonstrate. Also in practical terms, reports like the one published annually by DG TAXUD (9) give a clear idea of the results achieved by the authorities of each Member State in terms of seizures of fake goods at the borders.

However, within the Community the level of enforcement is different among Member States. Some Member States still need to do more towards improving the current situation and cutting down remaining production and sale of pirated or counterfeit goods. The new Directive harmonising the enforcement of intellectual property rights within the Community will help to improve the situation.

6.   Who are the key actors of IPR enforcement in the Commission?

Different Directorates-General (DGs) of the Commission are competent as regards the distinct aspects of IPR enforcement. In simple terms:

| — | DG Trade handles the external dimension (multilateral and bilateral) of the issue, i.e. enforcement in third countries. It also represents the European Community at the WTO and notably at the TRIPs Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

DG Trade handles the external dimension (multilateral and bilateral) of the issue, i.e. enforcement in third countries. It also represents the European Community at the WTO and notably at the TRIPs Council.

| — | DG Internal Market (MARKT) is responsible for EU intellectual and industrial property policy and legislation and represents and leads negotiations on behalf of the European Community in various committees in WIPO. DG MARKT was the author of the above mentioned Enforcement Directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

DG Internal Market (MARKT) is responsible for EU intellectual and industrial property policy and legislation and represents and leads negotiations on behalf of the European Community in various committees in WIPO. DG MARKT was the author of the above mentioned Enforcement Directive.

| — | DG Agriculture (AGRI) is responsible for internal and external EU policy and for EU legislation concerning geographical indications in agriculture and leads negotiations in these matters |
| --- | --- |

—

DG Agriculture (AGRI) is responsible for internal and external EU policy and for EU legislation concerning geographical indications in agriculture and leads negotiations in these matters

| — | DG Taxation and Customs Union (TAXUD) regulates the enforcement of IPR at the Community's external borders. DG TAXUD drafted the above mentioned Customs Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

—

DG Taxation and Customs Union (TAXUD) regulates the enforcement of IPR at the Community's external borders. DG TAXUD drafted the above mentioned Customs Regulation.

| — | DG Justice and Home Affairs (JAI) has shared regulatory responsibilities when IPR enforcement is linked with law enforcement both within and outside the Community. Specific ‘field’ operations in the same area will be handled by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). |
| --- | --- |

—

DG Justice and Home Affairs (JAI) has shared regulatory responsibilities when IPR enforcement is linked with law enforcement both within and outside the Community. Specific ‘field’ operations in the same area will be handled by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

| — | DG Development (DEV) and DG External Relations (RELEX) coordinate, both centrally and via the EU Delegations in third countries, Community assistance to developing countries and least-developed countries, including in the area of Trade, while the Europe Aid Cooperation Office (AIDCO) manages any technical assistance programmes. |
| --- | --- |

—

DG Development (DEV) and DG External Relations (RELEX) coordinate, both centrally and via the EU Delegations in third countries, Community assistance to developing countries and least-developed countries, including in the area of Trade, while the Europe Aid Cooperation Office (AIDCO) manages any technical assistance programmes.

| — | Finally, DG Enterprise (ENTR), as manager of the IPR Help Desk (10), and with its close contacts with the industry (i.e. with a very important number of IP right-holders), is a key partner. |
| --- | --- |

—

Finally, DG Enterprise (ENTR), as manager of the IPR Help Desk (10), and with its close contacts with the industry (i.e. with a very important number of IP right-holders), is a key partner.

This is a very crucial point for the efficacy of the present Strategy. DG TRADE and other DGs with external responsibilities have an important and well defined role in terms of improving the enforcement of IPR in third countries. However, the most ‘operational’ responsibilities of the fight against piracy and counterfeiting lie with Member States or with other DGs. The most visible and/or immediate results in this fight will always be achieved by the customs authorities, the police, national courts, the harmonisation of laws and procedures and the creation of information exchange mechanisms at Community level. In these (mainly domestic) areas DG TRADE can only provide a limited contribution. The situation is, however, different with regard to enforcement in third countries. In this case, DG TRADE and the Commission services with external responsibilities in these matters, with the cooperation of the EC Delegations in third countries, can certainly play a key role in achieving the implementation of the tasks proposed in the present Strategy.

---

(1)  Least Developed Countries have until 2006, at least, to adapt their legislation to the TRIPs requirements.

(2)  Copy available upon request sent to MARKT-E4@cec.eu.int

(3)  Spring European Council 2003: Presidency Conclusions:

| ‘37. | The European Council calls upon the Commission and Member States to improve exploitation of intellectual property rights by taking forward measures against counterfeiting and piracy, which discourages the development of a market for digital goods and services; to protect patents on computer implemented inventions...’ |
| --- | --- |

‘37.

(4)  In many countries other very lucrative criminal activities like drug trafficking carry considerable risks (even the death penalty) and are combated with considerable resources, while the trafficking of fake goods is seen as a relatively harmless practice.

4

(5)  Cf. the cases of counterfeits of certain brands of rice wine in China or of a well-known local fish sauce brand in Vietnam.

5

Cf.

(6)  The Commission services published a study in 2003 entitled The economic importance of copyright

6

The economic importance of copyright

(http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/en/intprop/index.htm).

Some countries, such as the USA and Finland produce such documents, namely for the copyright industries (‘Copyright industries in the US Economy — Stephen E. Siwek & Gale Mosteller, prepared for the International Intellectual Property Alliance and The Economic Importance of Copyright Industries in Finland, the Finnish Copyright Society’).

Copyright industries in the US Economy

The Economic Importance of Copyright Industries in Finland

(7)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/customs/counterfeit_piracy/index_en.htm

7

(8)  ‘Priority countries’ can be identified on the basis of the following criteria:

8

| — | Information received from Community right-holders and other sources (Delegations, etc.) regarding IPR violations. |
| --- | --- |

—

Information received from Community right-holders and other sources (Delegations, etc.) regarding IPR violations.

| — | Data regarding customs seizures of fake goods at the Community's borders. |
| --- | --- |

—

Data regarding customs seizures of fake goods at the Community's borders.

| — | Relevance of the countries in terms of actual or potential volume of trade with the Community. The inclusion of a country in one or more of the categories reflects the level of relevance of the situation in that particular country from the Community perspective. Countries with reduced importance in terms of trade were not considered a priority. |
| --- | --- |

—

Relevance of the countries in terms of actual or potential volume of trade with the Community. The inclusion of a country in one or more of the categories reflects the level of relevance of the situation in that particular country from the Community perspective. Countries with reduced importance in terms of trade were not considered a priority.

In any event, the situation in this area is constantly changing, therefore it will require continuous monitoring and updating.

(9)  http://europa.eu.int/comm/taxation_customs/customs/counterfeit_piracy/index_en.htm

9

(10)  http://www.ipr-helpdesk.org/index.htm

10

---

| 26.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/17 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/17

---

Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of silicon carbide originating in the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine and of an interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of silicon carbide originating in the Russian Federation

(2005/C 129/04)

Following the publication of a notice of impending expiry (1) of the anti-dumping measures in force on imports of silicon carbide originating in the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, (‘countries concerned’), the Commission has received a request for review of those measures pursuant to Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (2) (‘the basic Regulation’). The Commission has also received a request for an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation, of the measures in force on imports of silicon carbide originating in the Russian Federation.

1.   Requests for review

The requests were lodged on 24 February 2005 by the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) (‘the applicant’) on behalf of producers representing 100 % of the total Community production of silicon carbide.

2.   Product

The product under review is silicon carbide originating in the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine (‘the product concerned’), currently classifiable within CN code 2849 20 00. This CN code is given only for information.

3.   Existing measures

The measures currently in force are definitive anti-dumping duties imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 1100/2000 (3).

4.   Grounds for review

4.1.   Grounds for the expiry review

The request is based on the grounds that the expiry of measures would be likely to result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Community industry.

(a)   Russian Federation and Ukraine

The allegation of continuation of dumping for Russian Federation is based on a comparison of normal value, established on the basis of domestic prices, with the export prices of the product concerned when sold for export to the Community.

In view of the provisions of Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, the applicant established normal value in respect of Ukraine on the basis of the price in an appropriate market economy country, which is mentioned in paragraph 5.1(d) of this notice. The allegation of continuation of dumping for Ukraine is based on a comparison of normal value, as set out in the preceding sentence, with the export prices of the product concerned when sold for export to the Community.

On this basis, the dumping margins calculated are significant for Russian Federation and Ukraine.

The applicant has provided evidence that imports of the product concerned from Russian Federation and Ukraine have continued to enter in significant quantities.

It is also alleged that the volumes and the prices of the imported product concerned have continued, among other consequences, to have a negative impact on the level of prices charged by the Community industry, resulting in substantial adverse effects on overall performance, financial and employment situation of the Community industry.

The applicant further alleges the likelihood of further injurious dumping. In this respect the applicant presents evidence that, should measures be allowed to lapse, the current import level of the product concerned is likely to increase due to the existence of unused capacity in Russian Federation and Ukraine.

In addition, the applicant alleges that the partial removal of injury is mainly due to the existence of measures and that any recurrence of substantial imports at dumped prices from Russian Federation and Ukraine would likely lead to a recurrence of further injury of the Community industry should measures be allowed to lapse.

(b)   People's Republic of China

The applicant alleges the likelihood of recurrence of dumping of imports of the product concerned from the People's Republic of China. In view of the provisions of Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, the applicant established normal value for the People's Republic of China on the basis of the price in an appropriate market economy country, which is mentioned in paragraph 5.1(d) of this notice. The allegation of recurrence of dumping for the People's Republic of China is based on a comparison of normal value, as set out in the preceding sentence, with the export prices of the product concerned when sold for export to other third countries, i.e., Japan and the USA.

On this basis, the dumping margin calculated is significant for the People's Republic of China.

The applicant further alleges the likelihood of further injurious dumping. In this respect the applicant presents evidence that, should measures be allowed to lapse, the current import level of the product concerned is likely to increase due to the existence of unused capacity and the recent investments in production capacity in the People's Republic of China.

In addition, the applicant alleges that the removal of injury caused by imports of silicon carbide originating in the People's Republic of China is mainly due to the existence of measures and that any recurrence of substantial imports at dumped prices from the People's Republic of China would likely lead to a recurrence of further injury of the Community industry should measures be allowed to lapse.

4.2.   Grounds for the interim review

The applicant alleges that the current form of the measure, i.e. quantitative undertaking, with respect to imports of silicon carbide originating in the Russian Federation is inappropriate as it does not eliminate the injurious effects of the dumping and should be reviewed.

5.   Procedure

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that sufficient evidence exists to justify the initiation of an expiry review and an interim review, the Commission hereby initiates reviews in accordance with Articles 11(2) and 11(3) of the basic Regulation.

5.1.   Procedure for the determination of likelihood of dumping and injury and for the determination of the appropriateness of the form of the measure with regard to imports from the Russian Federation

The expiry review will determine whether the expiry of the measures would be likely, or unlikely, to lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The interim review will examine the appropriateness of the form of the current measures on imports of the product concerned from the Russian Federation and whether there is a need to change the form of the measures.

(a)   Sampling

In view of the apparent number of parties involved in this investigation, the Commission may decide to apply sampling, in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

(i)   Sampling for exporters/producers in the People's Republic of China

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporters producers, or representatives acting on their behalf, are hereby requested to make themselves known by contacting the Commission and providing the following information on their company or companies within the time limit set in paragraph 6(b)(i) and in the formats indicated in paragraph 7 of this notice:

| — | name, address, e-mail address, telephone, and fax, and/or telex numbers and contact person, |
| --- | --- |

—

name, address, e-mail address, telephone, and fax, and/or telex numbers and contact person,

| — | the turnover in local currency and the volume in tonnes of the product concerned sold for export to the Community during the period 1 April 2004 up to 31 March 2005, |
| --- | --- |

—

the turnover in local currency and the volume in tonnes of the product concerned sold for export to the Community during the period 1 April 2004 up to 31 March 2005,

| — | the turnover in local currency and the sales volume in tonnes for the product concerned sold to other third countries during the period 1 April 2004 up to 31 March 2005, |
| --- | --- |

—

the turnover in local currency and the sales volume in tonnes for the product concerned sold to other third countries during the period 1 April 2004 up to 31 March 2005,

| — | the precise activities of the company with regard to the production of the product concerned and the production volume in tonnes of the product concerned, the production capacity and the investments in production capacity during the period 1 April 2004 up to 31 March 2005, |
| --- | --- |

—

the precise activities of the company with regard to the production of the product concerned and the production volume in tonnes of the product concerned, the production capacity and the investments in production capacity during the period 1 April 2004 up to 31 March 2005,

| — | the names and the precise activities of all related companies (4) involved in the production and/or selling (export and/or domestic) of the product concerned, |
| --- | --- |

—

the names and the precise activities of all related companies (4) involved in the production and/or selling (export and/or domestic) of the product concerned,

| — | any other relevant information that would assist the Commission in the selection of the sample, |
| --- | --- |

—

any other relevant information that would assist the Commission in the selection of the sample,

| — | an indication of whether the company or companies agree to their inclusion in the sample, which implies replying to a questionnaire and accepting an on-the-spot investigation of their response. |
| --- | --- |

—

an indication of whether the company or companies agree to their inclusion in the sample, which implies replying to a questionnaire and accepting an on-the-spot investigation of their response.

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for the selection of the sample of exporters/producers, the Commission will, in addition, contact the authorities of the exporting country, and any known associations of exporters/producers.

(ii)   Sampling for importers

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all importers, or representatives acting on their behalf, are hereby requested to make themselves known to the Commission and to provide the following information on their company or companies within the time limit set in paragraph 6(b)(i) and in the formats indicated in paragraph 7 of this notice:

| — | name, address, e-mail address, telephone, and fax, and/or telex numbers and contact person, |
| --- | --- |

—

name, address, e-mail address, telephone, and fax, and/or telex numbers and contact person,

| — | the total turnover in EUR of the company during the period 1 April 2004 up to 31 March 2005, |
| --- | --- |

—

the total turnover in EUR of the company during the period 1 April 2004 up to 31 March 2005,

| — | the total number of employees, |
| --- | --- |

—

the total number of employees,

| — | the precise activities of the company with regard to the product concerned, |
| --- | --- |

—

the precise activities of the company with regard to the product concerned,

| — | the volume in tonnes and value in EUR of imports into and resales made in the Community market during the period 1 April 2004 up to 31 March 2005 of the imported product concerned originating in the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, |
| --- | --- |

—

the volume in tonnes and value in EUR of imports into and resales made in the Community market during the period 1 April 2004 up to 31 March 2005 of the imported product concerned originating in the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and Ukraine,

| — | the names and the precise activities of all related companies (4) involved in the production and/or selling of the product concerned, |
| --- | --- |

—

the names and the precise activities of all related companies (4) involved in the production and/or selling of the product concerned,

| — | any other relevant information that would assist the Commission in the selection of the sample, |
| --- | --- |

—

any other relevant information that would assist the Commission in the selection of the sample,

| — | an indication of whether the company or companies agree to their inclusion in the sample, which implies replying to a questionnaire and accepting an on-the-spot investigation of their response. |
| --- | --- |

—

an indication of whether the company or companies agree to their inclusion in the sample, which implies replying to a questionnaire and accepting an on-the-spot investigation of their response.

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for the selection of the sample of importers, the Commission will, in addition, contact any known associations of importers.

(iii)   Final selection of the samples

All interested parties wishing to submit any relevant information regarding the selection of the samples must do so within the time limit set in paragraph 6(b)(ii) of this notice.

The Commission intends to make the final selection of the samples after having consulted the parties concerned that have expressed their willingness to be included in the samples.

Companies included in the samples must reply to a questionnaire within the time limit set in paragraph 6(b)(iii) of this notice and must cooperate within the framework of the investigation.

If sufficient cooperation is not forthcoming, the Commission may base its findings, in accordance with Articles 17(4) and 18 of the basic Regulation, on the facts available. A finding based on facts available may be less advantageous to the party concerned, as explained in paragraph 8 of this notice.

(b)   Questionnaires

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the Community industry and to any association of producers in the Community, to the sampled exporters/producers in the People's Republic of China, to the exporters/producers in the Russian Federation and Ukraine, to any association of exporters/producers, to the sampled importers and traders, to any association of importers and traders named in the request or which cooperated in the investigation leading to the measures subject to the present review, and to the authorities of the exporting countries concerned.

(c)   Collection of information and holding of hearings

All interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known, submit information other than questionnaire replies and to provide supporting evidence. This information and supporting evidence must reach the Commission within the time limit set in point 6(a)(ii) of this notice.

Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request showing that there are particular reasons why they should be heard. This request must be made within the time limit set in point 6(a)(iii) of this notice.

(d)   Selection of the market economy country

In the previous investigation Brazil was used as an appropriate market economy country for the purpose of establishing normal value in respect of the People's Republic of China and Ukraine. The Commission envisages using Brazil again for this purpose. Interested parties are hereby invited to comment on the appropriateness of this country within the specific time limit set in paragraph 6(c) of this notice.

5.2.   Procedure for the assessment of Community interest

In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation and in the event that the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury is confirmed, a determination will be made as to whether to maintain, or repeal the anti-dumping measures would not be against the Community interest. For this reason the Community industry, importers and traders, their representative associations, representative users and representative consumer organisations, provided that they prove that there is an objective link between their activity and the product concerned, may, within the general time limits set in paragraph 6(a)(ii) of this notice, make themselves known and provide the Commission with information. The parties which have acted in conformity with the previous sentence may request a hearing, setting the particular reasons why they should be heard, within the time limit set in paragraph 6(a)(iii) of this notice. It should be noted that any information submitted pursuant to Article 21 will only be taken into account if supported by factual evidence at the time of submission.

6.   Time limits

(a)   General time limits

(i)   For parties to request a questionnaire

All interested parties who did not cooperate in the investigation leading to the measures subject to the present review should request a questionnaire as soon as possible, but not later than 15 days after the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(ii)   For parties to make themselves known, to submit questionnaire replies and any other information

All interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views and submit questionnaire replies or any other information within 40 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified. Attention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party's making itself known within the aforementioned period.

Companies selected in a sample must submit questionnaire replies within the time limits specified in paragraph 6(b)(iii) of this notice.

(iii)   Hearings

All interested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 40-day time limit.

(b)   Specific time limit in respect of sampling

| (i) | The information specified in paragraphs 5.1(a)(i) and 5.1(a)(ii) concerning samples should reach the Commission within 15 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, given that the Commission intends to consult parties concerned that have expressed their willingness to be included in the sample on its final selection within a period of 21 days of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(i)

The information specified in paragraphs 5.1(a)(i) and 5.1(a)(ii) concerning samples should reach the Commission within 15 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, given that the Commission intends to consult parties concerned that have expressed their willingness to be included in the sample on its final selection within a period of 21 days of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

| (ii) | All other information relevant for the selection of the sample as referred to in 5.1(a)(iii) must reach the Commission within a period of 21 days of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

All other information relevant for the selection of the sample as referred to in 5.1(a)(iii) must reach the Commission within a period of 21 days of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

| (iii) | The questionnaire replies from sampled parties must reach the Commission within 37 days from the date of the notification of their inclusion in the sample. |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

The questionnaire replies from sampled parties must reach the Commission within 37 days from the date of the notification of their inclusion in the sample.

(c)   Specific time limit for the selection of the market economy country

Parties to the investigation may wish to comment on the appropriateness of Brazil which, as mentioned in point 5.1(d) of this notice, is envisaged as a market-economy country for the purpose of establishing normal value in respect of the People's Republic of China and Ukraine. These comments must reach the Commission within 10 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

7.   Written submissions, questionnaire replies and correspondence

All submissions and requests made by interested parties must be made in writing (not in electronic format, unless otherwise specified) and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax, and/or telex numbers of the interested party. All written submissions, including the information requested in this notice, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis shall be labelled as ‘Limited’ (5) and, in accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, shall be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which will be labelled ‘FOR INSPECTION BY INTERESTED PARTIES’.

Commission address for correspondence:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate General for Trade |
| Directorate B |
| Office: J-79 5/16 |
| B-1049 Brussels |
| Fax (32-2) 295 65 05 |

European Commission

Directorate General for Trade

Directorate B

Office: J-79 5/16

B-1049 Brussels

Fax (32-2) 295 65 05

8.   Non-cooperation

In cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, provisional or final findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.

Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of the facts available. If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.

9.   Schedule of the expiry review and the interim review investigations

The expiry review and interim review investigations will be concluded, according to Article 11(5) of the basic Regulation within 15 months of the date of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ C 254, 14.10.2004, p. 3.

(2)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

(3)  OJ L 125, 26.05.2000, p. 3. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 991/2004 (OJ L 182, 19.05.2004, p. 18).

(4)  For guidance on the meaning of related companies, please refer to Article 143 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 concerning the implementation of the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1).

(5)  This means that the document is for internal use only. It is protected pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43). It is a confidential document pursuant to Article 19 of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1) and Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (Anti-dumping Agreement).

---

| 26.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/22

---

Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of ethyl alcohol originating in Guatemala and Pakistan

(2005/C 129/05)

The Commission has received a complaint pursuant to Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 on protection of dumped imports from countries non members of the European Community (‘the basic Regulation’) (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (2), alleging that imports of ethyl alcohol, originating in Guatemala and Pakistan (‘the countries concerned’), are being dumped and are thereby causing material injury to the Community industry.

1.   Complaint

The complaint was lodged on 11 April 2005 by the Committee of Industrial Ethanol Producers of the EU (CIEP) (‘the complainant’) on behalf of producers representing a major proportion, in this case more than 30 %, of the total Community production of ethyl alcohol.

2.   Product

The product allegedly being dumped is ethyl alcohol, whether denatured or undenatured, having an alcoholic strength by volume of 80 % vol or higher originating in Guatemala and Pakistan (‘the product concerned’), normally declared within CN codes 2207 10 00 and ex 2207 20 00. These CN codes are only given for information.

3.   Allegation of dumping

The allegation of dumping in respect of Guatemala and Pakistan is based on a comparison of normal value established on the basis of domestic prices, with the export prices of the product concerned to the Community.

On this basis, the dumping margins calculated are significant for all exporting countries concerned.

4.   Allegation of injury

The complainant has provided evidence that imports of the product concerned from Guatemala and Pakistan have increased overall in absolute terms and in terms of market share.

It is alleged that the volumes and the prices of the imported product concerned have had, among other consequences, a negative impact on the market share held, the quantities sold and the level of prices charged by the Community industry, resulting in substantial adverse effects on the overall performance and the financial situation of the Community industry.

5.   Procedure

Having determined, after consulting the Advisory Committee, that the complaint has been lodged by or on behalf of the Community industry and that there is sufficient evidence to justify the initiation of a proceeding, the Commission hereby initiates an investigation pursuant to Article 5 of the basic Regulation.

5.1.   Procedure for the determination of dumping and injury

The investigation will determine whether the product concerned originating in Guatemala and Pakistan is being dumped and whether this dumping has caused injury.

(a)   Sampling

In view of the apparent large number of parties involved in this proceeding, the Commission may decide to apply sampling in accordance with Article 17 of the basic Regulation.

(i)   Sampling for exporters/producers in Pakistan

In order to enable the Commission to decide whether sampling is necessary and, if so, to select a sample, all exporters/producers, or representatives acting on their behalf, are hereby requested to make themselves known by contacting the Commission and providing the following information on their company or companies within the time limit set in point 6(b)(i) and in the format indicated in point 7:

| — | name, address, e-mail address, telephone, and fax, and/or telex numbers and contact person, |
| --- | --- |

—

name, address, e-mail address, telephone, and fax, and/or telex numbers and contact person,

| — | the turnover in local currency and the volume in tonnes of the product concerned sold for export to the Community during the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, |
| --- | --- |

—

the turnover in local currency and the volume in tonnes of the product concerned sold for export to the Community during the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005,

| — | the turnover in local currency and the sales volume in tonnes for the product concerned on the domestic market during the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, |
| --- | --- |

—

the turnover in local currency and the sales volume in tonnes for the product concerned on the domestic market during the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005,

| — | whether the company intends to claim an individual margin (3) (individual margins can only be claimed by producers), |
| --- | --- |

—

whether the company intends to claim an individual margin (3) (individual margins can only be claimed by producers),

| — | the precise activities of the company with regard to the production of the product concerned, |
| --- | --- |

—

the precise activities of the company with regard to the production of the product concerned,

| — | the names and the precise activities of all related companies (4) involved in the production and/or selling (export and/or domestic) of the product concerned, |
| --- | --- |

—

the names and the precise activities of all related companies (4) involved in the production and/or selling (export and/or domestic) of the product concerned,

| — | any other relevant information that would assist the Commission in the selection of the sample, |
| --- | --- |

—

any other relevant information that would assist the Commission in the selection of the sample,

| — | an indication of whether the company or companies agree to their inclusion in the sample, which implies replying to a questionnaire and accepting an on-the-spot investigation of their response. |
| --- | --- |

—

an indication of whether the company or companies agree to their inclusion in the sample, which implies replying to a questionnaire and accepting an on-the-spot investigation of their response.

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for the selection of the sample of exporters/producers, the Commission will, in addition, contact the authorities of the exporting country, and any known associations of exporters/producers.

(ii)   Sampling for Community producers

In view of the large number of Community producers supporting the complaint, the Commission intends to investigate injury to the Community industry by applying sampling.

In order to enable the Commission to select a sample, all Community producers are hereby requested to provide the following information on their company or companies within the time limit set in point 6(b)(i):

| — | name, address, e-mail address, telephone, and fax, and/or telex numbers and contact person, |
| --- | --- |

—

name, address, e-mail address, telephone, and fax, and/or telex numbers and contact person,

| — | the total turnover in euro of the company during the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, |
| --- | --- |

—

the total turnover in euro of the company during the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005,

| — | the precise activities of the company with regard to the production of the product concerned, |
| --- | --- |

—

the precise activities of the company with regard to the production of the product concerned,

| — | the value in euro of sales of the product concerned made in the Community market during the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, |
| --- | --- |

—

the value in euro of sales of the product concerned made in the Community market during the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005,

| — | the volume in tonnes of sales of the product concerned made in the Community market during the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, |
| --- | --- |

—

the volume in tonnes of sales of the product concerned made in the Community market during the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005,

| — | the volume in tonnes of the production of the product concerned during the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005, |
| --- | --- |

—

the volume in tonnes of the production of the product concerned during the period 1 April 2004 to 31 March 2005,

| — | the names and the precise activities of all related companies (4) involved in the production and/or selling of the product concerned, |
| --- | --- |

—

the names and the precise activities of all related companies (4) involved in the production and/or selling of the product concerned,

| — | any other relevant information that would assist the Commission in the selection of the sample, |
| --- | --- |

—

any other relevant information that would assist the Commission in the selection of the sample,

| — | an indication of whether the company or companies agree to their inclusion in the sample, which implies replying to a questionnaire and accepting an on-the-spot investigation of their response. |
| --- | --- |

—

an indication of whether the company or companies agree to their inclusion in the sample, which implies replying to a questionnaire and accepting an on-the-spot investigation of their response.

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for the selection of the sample of Community producers, the Commission will, in addition, contact the association (CIEP) of Community producers.

(iii)   Final selection of the samples

All interested parties wishing to submit any relevant information regarding the selection of the samples must do so within the time limit set in point 6(b)(ii).

The Commission intends to make the final selection of the samples after having consulted the parties concerned that have expressed their willingness to be included in the samples.

Companies included in the samples must reply to a questionnaire within the time limit set in point 6(b)(iii) and must cooperate within the framework of the investigation.

If sufficient cooperation is not forthcoming, the Commission may base its findings, in accordance with Articles 17(4) and 18 of the basic Regulation, on the facts available. A finding based on facts available may be less advantageous to the party concerned, as explained in point 8 of this notice.

(b)   Questionnaires

In order to obtain the information it deems necessary for its investigation, the Commission will send questionnaires to the sampled Community industry and to any association of producers in the Community, to the sampled exporters/producers in Pakistan, to the exporters/producers in Guatemala, to any association of exporters/producers, to the importers, to any association of importers named in the complaint, and to the authorities of the exporting countries concerned.

(i)   Exporters producers in Guatemala

All such interested parties should contact the Commission forthwith by fax, but not later than the time limit set out in point 6(a)(i), in order to find out whether they are listed in the complaint and, if necessary, request a questionnaire, given that the time limit set in point 6(a)(ii) applies to all such interested parties.

(ii)   Exporters/producers claiming an individual margin in Pakistan

Exporters/producers in Pakistan claiming an individual margin, with a view to the application of Articles 17(3) and 9(6) of the basic Regulation, must submit a completed questionnaire within the time limit set in point 6(a)(ii) of this notice. They therefore have to request a questionnaire within the time limit set in point 6(a)(i). However, such parties should be aware that if sampling is applied to exporters/producers, the Commission may nonetheless decide not to calculate an individual margin for them, if the number of exporters/producers is so large that individual examination would be unduly burdensome and would prevent the timely completion of the investigation.

(c)   Collection of information and holding of hearings

All interested parties are hereby invited to make their views known, submit information other than questionnaire replies and to provide supporting evidence. This information and supporting evidence has to reach the Commission within the time limit set in point 6(a)(ii).

Furthermore, the Commission may hear interested parties, provided that they make a request showing that there are particular reasons why they should be heard. This request must be made within the time limit set in point 6(a)(iii).

5.2.   Procedure for assessment of Community interest

In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation and in the event that the allegations of dumping and injury caused thereby are substantiated, a decision will be reached as to whether the adoption of anti-dumping measures would not be against the Community interest. For this reason the Community industry, importers, their representative associations, representative users and representative consumer organisations, provided that they prove that there is an objective link between their activity and the product concerned, may, within the general time limits set in point 6(a)(ii), make themselves known and provide the Commission with information. The parties which have acted in conformity with the precedent sentence may request a hearing setting the particular reasons why they should be heard within the time limit set in point 6(a)(iii). It should be noted that any information submitted pursuant to Article 21 will only be taken into account if supported by factual evidence at the time of submission.

6.   Time limits

(a)   General time limits

(i)   For parties to request a questionnaire

All interested parties should request a questionnaire as soon as possible, but not later than 15 days after the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(ii)   For parties to make themselves known, to submit questionnaire replies and any other information

All interested parties, if their representations are to be taken into account during the investigation, must make themselves known by contacting the Commission, present their views and submit questionnaire replies or any other information within 40 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, unless otherwise specified. Attention is drawn to the fact that the exercise of most procedural rights set out in the basic Regulation depends on the party's making itself known within the aforementioned period.

Companies selected in a sample must submit questionnaire replies within the time limits specified in point 6(b)(iii).

(iii)   Hearings

All interested parties may also apply to be heard by the Commission within the same 40 day time limit.

(b)   Specific time limit in respect of sampling

| (i) | The information specified in points 5.1(a)(i) and 5.1(a)(ii) should reach the Commission within 15 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, given that the Commission intends to consult parties concerned that have expressed their willingness to be included in the sample on its final selection within a period of 21 days of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(i)

The information specified in points 5.1(a)(i) and 5.1(a)(ii) should reach the Commission within 15 days of the date of publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, given that the Commission intends to consult parties concerned that have expressed their willingness to be included in the sample on its final selection within a period of 21 days of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

| (ii) | All other information relevant for the selection of the sample as referred to in point 5.1(a)(iii) must reach the Commission within a period of 21 days of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(ii)

All other information relevant for the selection of the sample as referred to in point 5.1(a)(iii) must reach the Commission within a period of 21 days of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

| (iii) | The questionnaire replies from sampled parties must reach the Commission within 37 days from the date of the notification of their inclusion in the sample. |
| --- | --- |

(iii)

The questionnaire replies from sampled parties must reach the Commission within 37 days from the date of the notification of their inclusion in the sample.

7.   Written submissions, questionnaire replies and correspondence

All submissions and requests made by interested parties must be made in writing (not in electronic format, unless otherwise specified) and must indicate the name, address, e-mail address, telephone and fax, and/or telex numbers of the interested party. All written submissions, including the information requested in this notice, questionnaire replies and correspondence provided by interested parties on a confidential basis shall be labelled as ‘Limited’ (5) and, in accordance with Article 19(2) of the basic Regulation, shall be accompanied by a non-confidential version, which will be labelled ‘For inspection by interested parties’.

Commission address for correspondence:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate General for Trade |
| Directorate B |
| Office: J-79 5/16 |
| B-1049 Brussels |
| Fax (32-2) 295 65 05 |

European Commission

Directorate General for Trade

Directorate B

Office: J-79 5/16

B-1049 Brussels

Fax (32-2) 295 65 05

8.   Non-cooperation

In cases in which any interested party refuses access to or does not provide the necessary information within the time limits, or significantly impedes the investigation, provisional or final findings, affirmative or negative, may be made in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, on the basis of the facts available.

Where it is found that any interested party has supplied false or misleading information, the information shall be disregarded and use may be made of the facts available. If an interested party does not cooperate or cooperates only partially and findings are therefore based on facts available in accordance with Article 18 of the basic Regulation, the result may be less favourable to that party than if it had cooperated.

9.   Schedule of the investigation

The investigation will be concluded, according to Article 6(9) of the basic Regulation within 15 months of the date of the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union. According to Article 7(1) of the basic Regulation, provisional measures may be imposed no later than 9 months from the publication of this notice in the Official Journal of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 56, 6.3.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 461/2004 (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12).

(2)  OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 12.

(3)  Individual margins may be claimed pursuant to Article 17(3) of the basic Regulation for companies not included in the sample.

(4)  For guidance on the meaning of related companies, please refer to Article 143 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 253, 11.10.1993, p. 1).

(5)  This means that the document is for internal use only. It is protected pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents (OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43). It is a confidential document pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation and Article 6 of the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (Anti-dumping Agreement).

---

| 26.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/26

---

UNIFORM APPLICATION OF THE COMBINED NOMENCLATURE (CN)

(Classification of goods)

(2005/C 129/06)

Explanatory notes adopted in accordance with the procedure defined in Article 10(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (1), as last amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 493/2005 (2)

The ‘explanatory notes to the Combined Nomenclature of the European Communities’ (3) shall be amended as follows:

| | On page 318 the following texts are to be inserted:








  ‘8514 | Industrial or laboratory electric furnaces and ovens (including those functioning by induction or dielectric loss); other industrial or laboratory equipment for the heat treatment of materials by induction or dielectric loss |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 8514 20 80 | Dielectric furnaces and ovens
  Microwave ovens of a type designed to be used in restaurants, canteens, etc., differ from domestic appliances of heading 8516 in their power output and oven capacity. Such ovens having a power output of more than 1 000 W or an oven capacity of more than 34 litres are considered to be for industrial use. For microwave ovens combined in a single housing with a grill or another type of oven, the aforementioned power output applies only to the microwave. The classification of such a combination is not influenced by the oven capacity criterion.
  Microwave ovens having a power output of not more than 1 000 W and an oven capacity of not more than 34 litres are considered to be for domestic use (heading 8516).’ |

On page 318 the following texts are to be inserted:

‘8514

Industrial or laboratory electric furnaces and ovens (including those functioning by induction or dielectric loss); other industrial or laboratory equipment for the heat treatment of materials by induction or dielectric loss

8514 20 80

Dielectric furnaces and ovens

Microwave ovens of a type designed to be used in restaurants, canteens, etc., differ from domestic appliances of heading 8516 in their power output and oven capacity. Such ovens having a power output of more than 1 000 W or an oven capacity of more than 34 litres are considered to be for industrial use. For microwave ovens combined in a single housing with a grill or another type of oven, the aforementioned power output applies only to the microwave. The classification of such a combination is not influenced by the oven capacity criterion.

Microwave ovens having a power output of not more than 1 000 W and an oven capacity of not more than 34 litres are considered to be for domestic use (heading 8516).’

| | and








  ‘8516 50 00 | Microwave ovens
  See the Explanatory Notes to subheading 8514 20 80.’ |
| --- | --- | --- |

and

and

‘8516 50 00

Microwave ovens

See the Explanatory Notes to subheading 8514 20 80.’

| | On page 333 the following point 4 is to be inserted:







  8548 90 90 | Other







  ‘4. | Elements of ferrite or other ceramics (for example, those used in circulators for ultra high frequency transmission apparatus or as a high frequency filter in electrical cables), which are electrical parts, equally suitable for use in machines or apparatus falling within different headings of this chapter.’ |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

On page 333 the following point 4 is to be inserted:

On page 333 the following point 4 is to be inserted:

8548 90 90

Other

‘4.

Elements of ferrite or other ceramics (for example, those used in circulators for ultra high frequency transmission apparatus or as a high frequency filter in electrical cables), which are electrical parts, equally suitable for use in machines or apparatus falling within different headings of this chapter.’

---

(1)  OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 82, 31.3.2005, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ C 256, 23.10.2002, p. 1.

3

---

III Notices

Commission

| 26.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/27

---

Amendment to the notice of invitation for the refund on export of wholly milled and parboiled long-grain B rice to certain third countries

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 290 of 27 November 2004
  )

(2005/C 129/07)

Point 2 of Chapter I (‘Subject’) is replaced by the following text:

| ‘2. | The total quantity for which a maximum export refund may be fixed in accordance with Article 1(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/75 (1) is approximately 30 000 tonnes.’ |
| --- | --- |

‘2.

The total quantity for which a maximum export refund may be fixed in accordance with Article 1(2) of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/75 (1) is approximately 30 000 tonnes.’

---

(1)  OJ L 61, 7.3.1975, p. 25. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1948/2002 (JO L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 18).

1

---

Corrigenda

| 26.5.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 129/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.5.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 129/28

---

Corrigendum to the Rules of the Administrative Commission on social security for migrant workers attached to the Commission of the European Communities

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 119 of 20 May 2005
  )

(2005/C 129/08)

The publication is completed by the following text:

‘Working methods for an enlarged Administrative Commission

Code of Conduct

The enlargement of the European Union on 1 May 2004 increases considerably the number of participants in the Administrative Commission meetings.

In view of the new situation, this Code of Conduct aims to improve the efficiency of the preparation and conduct of meetings of the Administrative Commission so that the necessarily limited time available can be better used.

I.   Preparations of meetings

(a)   Better documents

Time would be gained in meetings by the use of more efficient documents, e.g. CASSTM notes could be limited to 1-2 pages.

The timely availability of documents is essential for the good preparation of a meeting.

Delegations should keep in mind that at least 10 days are needed for the translation of any document of less than four pages. For any additional five pages an additional week has to be added to the time needed for the translation.

Delegations should strictly observe the deadline for submitting notes to the Secretariat as indicated in Article 6(2) of the rules.

(b)   Organisation of the Agenda

Agendas should be organised with a view to enabling delegations to plan their composition, attendance and travel in a time-efficient manner.

The Agenda should to the greatest possible extent be structured so that items concerning the same social security branch are grouped together and dealt with at the meeting as consecutive items.

Changes to the adopted order of the Agenda shall be avoided if possible.

Whenever possible it should be indicated for each Agenda item whether the matter is for discussion or for the adoption of a decision.

(c)   Better use of time between meetings

The time between meetings should be used constructively.

Following a meeting of the Administrative Commission, or any other group under its authority, the Secretariat shall immediately send out a memorandum which specifies the follow-up actions to be taken, as well as the time limits within which delegations are asked to act.

The Chairman, with the assistance of the Secretariat, shall take the necessary steps to advance work between meetings, e.g. contacts can be made to sort out problems on specific issues so that a proposal for a possible solution can be presented at a forthcoming meeting.

II.   Conduct of meetings

(a)   Role of the Presidency

The role of the Presidency and its Chairman is to direct the work of the Administrative Commission not only by taking an active part in the organisation of the Agendas but also to be the initiator of discussions and decision making in the Administrative Commission.

Each Presidency shall present its programme for the work of the Administrative Commission and how it plans to carry it out.

The Chairman shall aim to organise each meeting in a manner that will ensure the most efficient use of time.

At the start of a meeting, the Chairman shall give a short introduction and, in particular shall provide any necessary information regarding the handing of the meeting including an indication of the length of time he expects to be devoted to each item.

At the start of a discussion on a point, the Chairman shall, if he feels it to be necessary, depending on the type of discussion which is needed, indicate to delegations the maximum length of their interventions on that point. In most cases interventions should not exceed two minutes.

Full table rounds shall be an exception. They may only be used on specific questions, with a time limit on interventions set by the Chairman.

The Chairman shall give as much focus as possible to discussions, in particular by requesting delegations to respond to compromise texts of specific proposals.

At the end of each item on the Agenda the Chairman shall briefly sum up the outcome and the results achieved.

(b)   Behaviour of delegations

Delegations should equally contribute to the efficient conduct of a meeting.

Delegations should, in particular keep in mind the following:

| — | to keep interventions brief and avoid repeating points made by previous speakers; |
| --- | --- |

—

to keep interventions brief and avoid repeating points made by previous speakers;

| — | like minded delegations could hold consultations with a view to the presentation by a single spokesperson of a common view on a specific matter; |
| --- | --- |

—

like minded delegations could hold consultations with a view to the presentation by a single spokesperson of a common view on a specific matter;

| — | when discussing texts, delegations could propose concrete drafting proposals, submitted, if possible, in writing, rather than limit themselves to expressing their disagreement with a particular proposal; |
| --- | --- |

—

when discussing texts, delegations could propose concrete drafting proposals, submitted, if possible, in writing, rather than limit themselves to expressing their disagreement with a particular proposal;

| — | unless indicated otherwise by the Chairman, delegations could refrain from intervening when in agreement with a particular proposal; in such case silence would be taken as agreement. |
| --- | --- |

—

unless indicated otherwise by the Chairman, delegations could refrain from intervening when in agreement with a particular proposal; in such case silence would be taken as agreement.

(c)   Harnessing technology

The Chairman as well as the Secretariat could, when deemed appropriate, make use of technical devices to enhance the efficiency of the conduct of a meeting.’

---