III. trade policies and practices by measure

III. trade policies and practices by measure

(1) Measures Directly Affecting Imports

(i) Customs procedures

1. The basic customs legislation is the EU Customs Code and its Implementing Regulation.[1] The Modernized Customs Code entered into force in June 2008, but is not yet applied, pending the application of the implementing provisions, due by 24 June 2013.[2] The EU has exclusive competence in the field of customs. Customs procedures, as defined in EU legislation, are harmonized and monitored at the level of the EU. Under EU legislation, the term "customs procedure" means release for free circulation, transit, customs warehousing, inward processing, processing under customs control, temporary admission, outward processing, and exportation.[3] National customs laws assist in the implementation of EU customs legislation. The national administrations and courts of member States are in charge of executing EU customs legislation under the oversight of the Commission and EU courts.

2. The European Commission maintains a website of customs legislation and related case law, and legislative proposals.[4] The Trade Contact Group is the main venue for regular consultations between the European Commission and economic operators on EU customs matters.[5]

3. EU customs legislation establishes the right of appeal and defines the general principles underpinning this right.[6] Appeals procedures are set out in national legislation, and vary across member States. Appeals must be lodged in the member State where the decision under dispute has been taken. Most member States require administrative review before a decision can be appealed judicially. The review by national courts of a decision taken by the customs administration of one member State is not binding on the customs administrations of other member States. In this context, the Commission notes that national courts have the possibility to refer cases to the Court of Justice of the EU for a preliminary ruling, which is binding on all customs administrations and judges in the EU.

4. In the context of the previous Review of the EU, some Members raised concerns and asked questions about the uniform implementation of customs procedures across the EU.[7] In response, the EU indicated that these concerns were "misplaced", for the EU had "fully harmonized customs procedures".[8] In addition, the EU noted that "issues with practical implementation" were not higher in the EU than in other large WTO Members. The EU's administration of several laws and regulations pertaining to customs classification and valuation, and the review of administrative actions relating to customs matters were the subject of WTO dispute settlement in 2005-06.[9]

5. The time needed to complete import procedures varies among member States.[10] It is among the shortest in the world for Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Sweden, but around twice the OECD average for Bulgaria, Greece, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. According to the Commission, these differences are due to geographical and logistical factors, and do not lead traders to favour particular ports.

6. From July 2009, persons established in the EU who are involved in activities covered by customs legislation must be in possession of a national number that is valid as an Economic Operator Registration and Identification (EORI) number, issued by the competent authority of the member State in which they are established. Numbers valid as EORI numbers are unique to each person and recognized throughout the EU; prior to their introduction, registration and issue of identification numbers were regulated at the national level. Non-established persons must obtain an EORI number if they perform one of the activities listed in Article 41(3) of the Customs Code Implementing Regulation; they must request an EORI number from the member State where they first perform one of these activities. The Commission maintains a document containing the list of authorities responsible for assigning EORI numbers in each member State.[11]

7. During the period under review, the EU introduced advance cargo information requirements for imports as part of the so-called "safety and security amendment" to the Customs Code.[12] From 2011, carriers must lodge an electronic Entry Summary Declaration (ENS) with the "customs office of first entry" into the EU. Article 181c of the Customs Code Implementing Regulation sets out several exceptions. In addition, the ENS is not required for imports covered by a security agreement between the EU and another country. These agreements exist with Norway and Switzerland; the agreement with Switzerland extends to Liechtenstein; an agreement with Andorra has been negotiated and is expected to enter into force in 2011. The ENS must be submitted electronically within the time limits specified for each mode of transportation (Table III.1). Annex 30A of the Customs Code Implementing Regulation specifies the data elements that must be provided as part of the ENS. The safety and security amendment was not subject to impact assessment. According to the Commission, the safety and security amendment is in line with the World Customs Organization's (WCO) SAFE Framework of Standards adopted by the WCO Council in June 2005.

8. Member States conduct risk analysis for customs control purposes on the basis of the information contained in the ENS. A common risk management framework has been operational since January 2007.[13] The principles that govern risk management in the EU are set out in the Customs Code Implementing Regulation.[14]

9. The Electronic Customs Decision instructed the European Commission to evaluate, in partnership with member States, "the common functional specifications" for a framework of single window services by 15 February 2011.[15] According to the Decision, single window services would involve the "seamless flow of data" between economic operators, customs authorities and other agencies, and the European Commission. In addition, it would allow economic operators to submit all information required for customs clearance, including information required by agencies other than Customs. Member States endorsed the common functional specifications for the preparatory phase of single window services in December 2010. The preparatory phase focuses on the automated validation of the customs declaration's supporting documentation.

Table III.1

Table III.2

Structure of MFN tariffs, selected years

(%)

Total number of lines	9,843	9,699	9,294
Bound tariff lines (% of all tariff lines)	100.0	100.0	100.0
Duty-free tariff lines (% of all tariff lines)	26.0	25.3	25.0
Simple average (%)	6.9	6.7	6.4
Dutiable tariff lines average rate (%)	9.4	9.0	8.5
Non- ad valorem tariffs (% of all tariff lines)^a	10.0	10.1	10.5
Tariff quotas (% of all tariff lines)	3.4	4.8	4.9
Non- ad valorem tariffs with no AVEs (% of all tariff lines)	2.1	2.7	2.9
Domestic tariff "spikes" (% of all tariff lines)^b	5.6	5.3	5.7
International tariff "peaks" (% of all tariff lines)^c	9.0	8.4	8.7
Overall standard deviation of applied rates	14.0	14.1	10.3
"Nuisance" applied rates (% of all tariff lines)^d	9.4	9.6	8.8

a Excluding Petroleum.

b Domestic tariff spikes are defined as those exceeding three times the overall simple average applied rate.

c International tariff peaks are defined as those exceeding 15%.

d Nuisance rates are those greater than zero, but less than or equal to 2%.

Source: WTO Secretariat estimates, based on Common Customs Tariff, OJ L 284, 29 October 2010, and IDB WTO database.

35. Around 11% of tariff lines are non- ad valorem. On average, these continue to afford higher protection than ad valorem rates. The average AVE of non- ad valorem tariff rates is 24.7%, compared with 4.6% for ad valorem duties. Apart from agricultural products, non- ad valorem tariff rates apply on 34 tariff lines, including mostly glass and watches, watch and clock movements, and watch cases.

Table III.3

Table III.4

Anti-dumping investigations and measures imposed, 2006-10^a

Investigation initiations
Provisional measures
Definitive measures
Expired measures^b
Confirmation of measure following expiry review
Termination of measure following expiry review

a As at 31 December 2010.

b Measures that expired automatically after their five-year imposition.

Source: WTO Secretariat, based on European Commission (various years), Anti-dumping, Anti-subsidy, Safeguard Statistics. Viewed at: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/trade-defence], and information provided by the Commission.

57. Around one third of the goods subject to AD measures in the EU are chemicals, 23% are base metals, including iron and steel, 7% are mineral products, and 6% are textiles, clothing, and footwear.[66] Some of the highest definitive AD duties that resulted from original investigations or reviews between June 2008 and June 2010 concern certain welded pipes of iron or non-alloy steel (90.6%) and certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (up to 100.1%) from China, and stainless steel fasteners from Viet Nam (up to 707%).[67]

58. The EU can impose AD measures only if the Commission determines that the measure is not against the wider interest of the EU economy. Since the previous Review of the EU, no AD proceedings have been terminated due to a finding that the measure in question would be against the "Community interest".

Table III.5

Anti‑dumping measures by country or territory, 2006-10

Trading partner/region
Algeria
Armenia
Australia
Belarus
Brazil
Bulgaria
China
Chinese Taipei
Croatia
Egypt
Faeroe Islands
India
Indonesia
Israel
Japan
Kazakhstan
Korea, Republic of
Laos
Libya
Macao, China
Macedonia
Malaysia
Moldova
Morocco
Norway
Pakistan
Philippines
Romania
Russia
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Table III.5 (cont'd)
South Africa
Sri Lanka
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United States
Viet Nam
Total number of measures

Source: WTO Secretariat, based on European Commission (various years), Anti-dumping, Anti-subsidy, Safeguard Statistics. Viewed at: http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/trade-defence], and information provided by the Commission.

59. Initiations of CV measures investigations increased between 2008 and 2009, then decreased in 2010 (Table III.6). During 2010, the EU imposed 4 provisional measures and 3 definitive measures, compared with 1 provisional and 1 definitive measures in 2009.

Table III.6

Table III.7

Table III.8

Table III.9

Specific trade concerns over EU SPS measures, October 2008 to January 2011^a

	Relevant source document^b	Raised by	Date first raised	Solution
Maximum residue levels of pesticides	G/SPS/R/61	India	October 2010	Not reported
Regulation 1099/2009 on the humane treatment of animals	G/SPS/R/59	India	June 2010	Not reported
Artificial colour warning labels	G/SPS/R/59	United States	March 2010	Not reported
Risks arising from carambola fruit fly in French Guyana	G/SPS/R/58	Brazil	March 2010	Not reported
Measures related to wood packaging material	G/SPS/R/58	Canada	November 2000	Resolved
Regulation on novel foods	G/SPS/R/56	Colombia, Ecuador, Peru	March 2006	Not reported
Greece's inspection and testing procedures for imported cereals	G/SPS/R/55	Canada	March 2005	Not reported
Table III.9 (cont'd)
Import restrictions on cooked poultry	G/SPS/R/53	China	October 2007	Partially resolved
Maximum residue levels for pesticides in cacao	G/SPS/R/53	Ecuador	October 2008	Not reported
Restrictions on U.S. poultry exports	G/SPS/R/51	United States	October 2006	Under dispute settlement

a Covers concerns raised, addressed, or resolved between mid 2008 and October 2010.

b Only the most recent source document is cited.

Source: WTO Secretariat.

 

102. According to the Commission, SPS measures are adopted mostly at EU level, although member States may also adopt SPS measures. The main EU legislation on SPS is contained in Regulation No. 178/2002, known as the General Food Law; Regulations No. 852/2004, 853/2004, and 854/2004 on food hygiene; Regulation No. 882/2004 on official controls; and Council Directive 2000/29/EC on plant health.[115]

103. The Commission's Animal Health Strategy for the period 2007-13 aims to replace "the existing series of linked and interrelated policy actions by a... single clear regulatory framework converging as far as possible with the OIE/Codex recommendations/standards and guidelines".[116] The deadline for the preparation of a legislative proposal on animal health is March 2012. In addition, the Commission intends to adopt, in a package with the draft animal health law, legislative proposals for: a review of the regulation on official controls for feed and food; plant health legislation; and legislation on seeds and propagation materials.

104. The adoption of EU basic acts on SPS require the assent of both the European Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure (see Chapter II(1)). SPS measures at the EU level are usually established on the basis of implementing powers conferred on the Commission by means of an EU basic act. Thus, their formulation and adoption has been subject to the "comitology" procedure. The main regulatory committees involved in the development of SPS measures are the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and the Standing Committee on Plant Health. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009, new rules govern the Commission's exercise of implementing powers (see Chapter II(1)). Furthermore, under the Lisbon Treaty, SPS measures may also be established on the basis of powers conferred on the Commission to adopt "delegated acts".

105. The General Food Law set out the general principles governing food and feed at EU and national levels. Measures adopted under the Law must be based on risk analysis "except where this is not appropriate to the circumstances or the nature of the measure".[117] According to the Commission, no measures have been adopted under this exception since the last Review of the EU. Risk management must take into account the opinions of the European Food Safety Authority, an independent institution that provides scientific advice on food safety issues.

106. The General Food Law permits the establishment of "provisional" measures if "the possibility of harmful effects on health is identified but scientific uncertainty persists".[118] These measures must be "proportionate and no more trade restrictive of trade than is required to achieve the high level of health protection" in the EU, and must be reviewed "within a reasonable period of time".

107. Measures adopted under the General Food Law must take into consideration international standards, "except where such standards or relevant parts would be an ineffective or inappropriate means for the fulfilment of the legitimate objectives of food law or where there is a scientific justification, or where they would result in a different level of protection from the one determined as appropriate in the Community". Regarding animal health and food of animal origin, the Commission indicates that EU legislation is largely based on OIE/Codex recommendations, standards, and guidelines.[119] According to the Commission, there are areas where the EU could increase its convergence with these standards, including disease status, imports, quality and evaluation of veterinary services, laboratory testing, animal nutrition, and vaccination. Regarding measures in the field of plant health and products of non-animal origin, the Commission notes that the EU always follows the relevant international standards.

108. Imported food must comply with the relevant requirements of EU food law and animal health law; conditions recognized by the EU to be at least equivalent to these requirements; or the requirements contained in specific agreements. The EU has SPS agreements with Andorra, Canada, Chile, EFTA, Faroe Islands, Liechtenstein, Mexico, New Zealand, San Marino, Switzerland, and the United States. These agreements are available online.[120]

109. Imports of live animals and products of animal origin are prohibited unless they are from a country or region that has received prior approval, and thus appears on the relevant "third country list" managed by the Commission. The term products of animal origin covers food that has been derived from animals or comes from animals, whether processed (e.g. ham, marinated fish, egg powder, and gelatine) or not (e.g., fresh meat, fishery products, raw milk, eggs, and honey).[121] It also covers products not intended for human consumption, whether processed (e.g. pet food) or not (e.g. raw material for pharmaceutical use, wool, hides, and skins).

110. Requests for first-time imports of live animals and products of animal origin must be submitted to the Commission by the competent national authority of the exporting country. In general, the approval process involves an audit, including an on-site visit, by the Commission's inspection service, the Food and Veterinary Office (FVO). The objective of the inspection is to evaluate whether the animal and public health situation, official services, legal provisions, control systems, and production standards meet EU requirements. The Commission indicates that it does not charge a fee for its audits and pays for the expenses of the audit team.

111. If the outcome of the inspection is satisfactory, the Commission prepares draft legislation to include the country in question in the lists regarding animal and public health. The Commission adopts the draft legislation provided that the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health agrees. Approvals may cover all or part of a country, reflecting its animal and public health status and the type of animal or product of animal origin for which approval is sought. Applicant countries must be OIE members, have systems in place for the rapid detection, reporting, and confirmation of OIE listed diseases, and fulfil other legislative requirements. The Commission has published guidance on these requirements.[122]

112. In addition to being entered in the relevant list, countries seeking to export animals and products of animal origin to the EU must obtain approval for their residues monitoring programme. Individual slaughterhouses, processing plants, fishing vessels, and other establishments must also be listed for export to the EU on the basis of a proposal from the exporting country. In general, only products of animal origin from establishments that appear on the relevant list can export to the EU. For food, these approvals also involve the adoption of legislation by the Commission. The Commission has published guidance on the criteria for these approvals.[123] Imports of meat are also subject to certification on the protection of animals at the time of slaughter or killing.[124] There are no statutory limitations regarding the duration of the process to approve first-time imports of live animals and products of animal origin.

113. Unlike for animals and products of animal origin, first-time imports of plants and their products require pre-approval. The same principle applies on food of non-animal origin, which includes fruits, vegetables, cereals, drinks, spices, condiments, and food of mineral origin. All food must comply with the general requirements on food hygiene in Regulation No. 852/2004, and, depending on the product, on contaminants, pesticide residue levels, food additives, food irradiation, novel foods, and radioactivity. There are also product-specific requirements for quick frozen foodstuffs, foodstuffs for particular nutritional purposes, and genetically modified organisms. Certain plants and plant product must comply with phytosanitary requirements.

114. Control procedures on imports of animals and products of animal origin are largely harmonized across the EU.[125] Imports of these products must be accompanied by health certification attesting to the fulfilment of EU import conditions.[126] They must undergo official controls at an EU approved border inspection post, and may be subject to additional controls at their country of destination. The list of approved "border inspection posts" is reviewed three or four times per year; there are around 300 within the EU. The official controls in the border inspection posts involve documentary, identity, and physical checks. The frequency of physical checks can be reduced for products of animal origin subject to EU harmonized requirements, taking into consideration the risk profile of the product in question.[127] Live animal imports must be notified to the border inspection post at least 24 hours before arrival, while imports of products of animal origin must be notified before arrival. The first part of the Common Veterinary Entry Document is used for this notification; the notification can be carried out electronically through the Trade Control and Expert System, known as TRACES. Consignments of live animals and products of animal origin must also be accompanied by the model health certificate set out in EU legislation for the relevant species or product. In the absence of an EU model health certificate for a particular species or product, member States may establish their own import requirements.

115. Certain products of animal origin are subject to "special import conditions", which consist mostly of 100% testing of each import consignment or pre-export testing and certification. These measures affect nine WTO Members and involve fishery products, horse and rabbit meat, poultry, eggs and egg products, honey, and milk powder (July 2010).[128]

116. National authorities must organize regular official controls for imports of feed and food of non-animal origin. Control activities at national level must take place at an appropriate place, which may be the border, point of release for free circulation, or retail outlets.[129] In general, feed and food of non-animal origin may enter the EU without certification by the exporting country or pre-arrival notification. Consignments of certain imports of feed and food of non-animal origin specified in Annex I to Regulation No. 669/2009 must be notified prior to arrival, and must enter the EU through designated points of entry, where they are subject to reinforced controls.[130] These include documentary checks on all consignments, and identity and physical checks, including laboratory analysis, at the frequency established by the Annex. Annex I is subject to quarterly review.

117. Plants and plant products listed in Council Directive 2000/29/EC (Annex V, Part B) must be accompanied by a phytosanitary certificate issued by the competent authority of the exporting country, and are subject to border controls, including physical inspection.[131] The frequency of controls may be reduced for products from specific countries, based on risk profiling.[132] There are 51 products from specific countries subject to reduced inspections.[133] Unless determined by member States on an exceptional basis for particular commodities, imports of plants and plant products are not restricted to specific border posts.

118. The Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) is a network managed by the Commission that allows food and feed authorities of member States to exchange information about measures taken in response to serious risks detected in relation to food and feed. The legal basis for RASFF is the General Food Law, which sets out the criteria for notification to RASFF.[134] For example, members of RASFF are required to notify rejections of food or feed at the border if the consignment is rejected because of a risk to human or animal health. Border rejections represent just under half of the original notifications to RASFF.[135] In 2009, there were about twice as many border rejection notifications regarding food of non-animal origin than animal origin. The main category of food of non-animal origin notified in border rejections is “nuts, nut products and seeds”, while fish is the main category of food of animal origin.

119. Under Regulation No. 882/2004, the Commission may recognize specified pre-export checks that a non-EU member State carries out on feed and food.[136] The Commission recognizes pre-export controls carried out by the United States on peanuts and derived products with respect to aflatoxins.[137] The EU is discussing with Canada the possibility of recognizing Canada's pre-export checks of wheat and certain derived products with respect to ochratoxin A.

120. The use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is regulated at EU level on the basis of Regulation No. 1829/2003 on genetically modified food and feed, Directive 2001/18/EC on the deliberate release of GMOs into the environment, and Regulation 1830/2003 on the traceability and labelling of GMOs, and food and feed produced from GMOs.[138] Member States may not legislate with respect to the cultivation of GMOs, only to their use. In July 2010, the European Commission adopted a proposed regulation to amend Directive 2001/18/EC to allow member States to restrict or prohibit the cultivation in all or part of their territories of GMOs authorized at the EU level. Under the proposed regulation, member States may adopt measures with respect to the cultivation of GMOs in their territories, but not with respect to the import into the EU of authorized GM seeds and plant propagating material, and the products of their harvest. Prohibitions or restrictions would be based on grounds other than those covered by the environmental and health risk assessment under the existing EU authorization system for GMOs. According to this system, the level of protection of human and animal health and of the environment chosen in the EU may not be revised by a member State.

121. Under the proposed regulation, member States must notify measures they intend to adopt, and the reasons for adopting them, to the Commission and to the other member States one month prior to their adoption. The proposed legislation does not change the authorization procedure for GMOs. The Commission's legislative proposal is subject to the procedure on co-decision with the European Parliament and the Council.

122. According to the Commission, the new approach is necessary "to achieve the right balance between maintaining the EU system of authorisations based on scientific assessment of health and environmental risks and the need to grant freedom to Member States to address specific national, regional or local issues raised by the cultivation of GMOs".[139] Several member States have prohibited or restricted cultivation of GMOs authorized at the EU level. For example, Austria, France, Germany, Hungary, and Lithuania have prohibited maize MON 810; Austria has prohibited maize T 25; and Austria, Hungary, and Luxembourg have prohibited Amflora potato. According to the scientific opinion of the European Food Safety Agency, "these measures were not based on new or additional scientific information since the authorizations were granted and therefore such measures were not justified from a legal point of view."[140] A judgement issued by the Court of Justice of the EU in July 2009 considered that legislation adopted by Poland to prohibit the marketing of GM seeds was contrary to EU law.[141]

(2) Measures Directly Affecting Exports

(i) Registration and documentation

123. Persons established in the EU who are involved in activities covered by customs legislation must be in possession of a national number that is valid as an Economic Operator Registration and Identification (EORI) number (see section (1)(i)).

124. Since July 2009, export declarations must be lodged electronically at the customs office of export, i.e., the customs office designated by the customs authorities for the completion of the formalities (for goods destined to leave the customs territory of the Community).[142] In principle, export declarations for containerized maritime cargo must be lodged at least 24 hours before the cargo is loaded on the outbound vessel; export declarations for other cargo must be lodged before the goods leave the EU.[143] The EU Customs Code Implementing Regulation specifies certain exceptions.[144]

125. Export declarations must contain the security data specified in Annex 30A of the EU Customs Code Implementing Regulation. Security data are not required for exports to Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland. Exports from authorized economic operators are subject to reduced security data requirements (see section (1)(i)).

(ii) Export taxes and fees

126. The EU does not apply taxes on exports.

(iii) Restrictions and controls

127. There have been no major changes, during the review period, in the EU legal framework governing export restrictions and controls. EU member States maintain quantitative restrictions and controls on exports for foreign policy and security reasons.[145] Arms exports are controlled at the member State level. In assessing applications to export arms listed in the EU Common Military List, member States have agreed to follow the EU Code of Conduct on Arms Exports.[146] The Common Military List was updated in March 2008.[147]

128. Exports of "dual-use" items are controlled at the EU level. The EU's dual-use export control system, set out in Regulation No. 428/2009, defines dual-use items as "items, including software and technology, which can be used for both civil and military purposes, and shall include all goods which can be used for both non-explosive uses and assisting in any way in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices".[148] The list of controlled dual-use items is contained in Annex I of the Regulation. Member States may impose export controls on unlisted dual-use items under certain conditions specified in the Regulation.[149]

129. Exports of most controlled items to Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, and the United States are authorized under the Community General Export Authorizations. The specific conditions for exporting under the Authorizations are specified in Annex II of Regulation No. 428/2009; member States may impose certain additional administrative requirements.

130. All other exports controlled under Regulation No. 428/2009 are subject to authorization granted by the member State where the exporter is established. There are national general, global, or individual authorizations, all of which are valid throughout the EU. France, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom have national general authorizations, which must be granted in accordance with the conditions set out in Article 9(4) of the Regulation. Individual and global authorizations are granted to one exporter, and cover either one end user (individual) or several countries and end users (global). In assessing applications for individual or global authorizations, member States must take into consideration the criteria specified in the Regulation.[150]

131. The European Commission indicates that "there is a lack of transparency across Member States regarding both the scope and conditions of use of national general export authorisations and the list of exporters denied access to national general export authorisations".[151] According to the Commission, "this leads to regulatory treatment of certain exports that benefits businesses established in one Member State at least partly at the expense of businesses established in and national security interests of other Member States, and is not in the best interests of the Community as a whole".

132. The European Commission proposes creating new Community General Export Authorizations "to simplify the current legal system, enhance the EU industry's competitiveness and establish a level playing field for all EU exporters when they export certain items to certain destinations".[152] The proposal is under discussion in the Council and the European Parliament. In addition, as part of its blueprint for EU trade policy, the Commission announced in November 2010 that it would adopt a Green Paper "seeking to improve [the EU's] export control system".[153]

(iv) Official support and related fiscal measures

133. The EU provides export subsidies to eligible exporters of certain agricultural products (Chapter IV(1)).

134. In June 2010, a WTO panel issued its report on a complaint by the United States against certain EU measures affecting trade in large civil aircraft.[154] Among the panel's findings was that certain instances of financing by Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom for the design and development of the A380 aircraft constitute prohibited export subsidies. The EU has appealed the panel's report.[155]

135. Under the EU Customs Code's drawback system, importers can claim repayment of import duties paid on imported goods if they export such goods in the form of "compensating products", that is, products resulting from processing operations.[156] In addition, the Customs Code establishes a suspension system whereby imported goods intended for export in the form of compensating products are not subject to import duties.[157] Once in force, the Modernized Customs Code will eliminate the drawback system. The Commission indicates that there are no data on the value of repayments under the drawback system. In addition, the Commission notes that drawback has not played an important role in the EU.

(v) Finance, insurance, guarantees, and promotion

136. Official export credits are subject to EU rules. The Directive on medium- and long-term export credit insurance establishes principles for official insurance and guarantee arrangements, premiums, and cover policies.[158] Export credits are granted at the member State level through official export credit agencies.

137. Following the onset of the financial crisis in 2008, the European Commission simplified the "escape clause" for short-term export insurance.[159] Under the escape clause, member States may, subject to authorization from the Commission, offer export credit insurance cover for "marketable risks", provided that the cover is temporarily unavailable in the private market.[160] Marketable risks are defined as commercial and political risks on public and non-public debtors established in the EU and eight other OECD countries, with a maximum risk period of less than two years. Member States must notify the Commission of their intention to use the escape clause.

138. Under the new simplified procedures, member States invoking the escape clause must provide evidence of the lack of cover for short-term export credit from a large, well-known international private export credit insurer, and a national credit insurer. Alternatively, they must demonstrate that insurers refused to cover specific operations of at least four well-established exporters in its territory. Between mid-December 2008 and October 2010, the European Commission authorized 13 simplified export-credit schemes (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Sweden).[161]

139. In January 2011, the Commission issued a Communication extending the procedural simplification on short-term export credit insurance until end 2011.[162] The Commission notes that "companies still find it difficult to find coverage from private insurers in many sectors and many Member States". In addition, the Commission decided in December 2010 to extend the application of the underlying legal framework on short-term export-credit insurance (the 1997 Communication) until end 2012.[163]

140. The EU provides assistance to promote its agricultural products and food outside the EU (Chapter IV(1)). In addition, export promotion schemes are in place at the national or sub-national levels.

(3) Measures Affecting Production and Trade

(i) Business framework and foreign investment regime

141. Legal and administrative barriers to entrepreneurship in the EU are below the OECD average. Among EU member States, barriers to entrepreneurship are highest in Poland and Greece, and lowest in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Sweden.[164]

142. Corporate income is taxed in every member State, but the rates and the rules for determining the tax base differ substantially. Unlike indirect taxes, EU law does not specifically require harmonization of direct taxes. Corporate income tax rates in the EU average 23.2%.[165] The top statutory tax rate on corporate income ranges from 10% in Bulgaria and Cyprus to 35% in Malta.

143. The Treaty on the Functioning of the EU prohibits restrictions on capital movements among EU member States, and between EU and non-EU members.[166] Restrictions on direct investment from non-EU members that were in place in December 1993 (December 1999 for Bulgaria, Estonia, and Hungary) are exempt from this prohibition.[167] Also exempt are restrictions "justified on grounds of public policy or public security", and those taken "to prevent infringement of national law and regulations, in particular in the field of taxation and the prudential supervision of financial institutions, or to lay down procedures for the declaration of capital movements for purposes of administrative or statistical information".[168]

144. Following the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty in December 2009, the adoption of measures on direct investment between EU and non-EU members requires the assent of the Council and the European Parliament, in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (Chapter II(1)). However, under EU rules on capital movements, if the measure is "a step backwards in Union law as regards the liberalisation of the movement of capital to or from third countries", it must be adopted by the Council unanimously, in consultation with the European Parliament.[169] The Commission notes that no such measures have been adopted since the last Review of the EU. In exceptional circumstances, the Council may adopt temporary safeguard measures restricting capital movements with non-EU member States subject to the conditions set out in Article 66 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.

145. The Treaty on the Functioning of the EU prohibits measures that restrict the "freedom of establishment" of EU nationals in the territory of another member State. This means that companies or firms formed in accordance with the law of a member State, and having their registered office, central administration, or principal place of business in the EU can establish agencies, branches, or subsidiaries in the territory of another member State.[170] Freedom of establishment extends to the EU subsidiaries of non-EU companies, but not to their branches or agencies.

146. EU member States have long maintained a policy of national treatment of foreign direct investment (FDI), subject to sector-specific restrictions. Empirical analysis shows that member States did not react to the recent financial and economic crisis by introducing new FDI restrictions.[171]

147. The overall level of restrictiveness on FDI in most EU member States is lower than the OECD average.[172] Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, and Slovenia maintain the lowest level of FDI restrictions among member States, and Poland the highest. On average, restrictions on FDI are highest in real estate, fishing, transport, agriculture, and media. They mostly take the form of equity limitations. Other barriers to FDI are requirements on key personnel and reciprocity requirements regarding investments from outside the EU (Box III.1). Member States' special rights in certain state-owned enterprises have also been found to restrict investment (see section (ii) below.

148. Several member States, including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom maintain FDI review procedures for national security purposes. During the period under review, Germany amended its Foreign Trade and Payments Act to broaden the scope of investment reviews. Under the amended Act, the Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology can examine foreign investment transactions to determine whether they jeopardize public interest or public security. Reviews are carried out only on transactions resulting in the acquisition of 25% or more of a resident company by investors from outside the EU or EFTA; transactions by EU-based companies may be examined if a non-EU shareholder owns 25% or more of the voting shares of that company if there are indications of abuse or circumvention.[173]

149. There are no notification requirements under Germany's investment review procedures. The Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology is responsible for determining whether a particular foreign investment transaction is covered by the Act. It uses information from the Federal Agency of Banking Supervision and the weekly lists of transactions issued by the Federal Competition Agency. In principle, the Ministry must decide whether to conduct a review within three months of the acquisition. It must issue an administrative act informing the companies concerned about the initiation of the review. Investors under review must submit the documents listed in the Federal Gazette of 24 April 2009.

150. Germany's Ministry of Economics and Technology may prohibit or impose conditions on a foreign investment transaction within two months of receiving the required information. The Ministry's decision is subject to judicial review. The Ministry has not prohibited or imposed conditions on any transaction under the amended Act. The Secretariat did not receive official data on the number of cases reviewed.

Box III.1: Reciprocity requirements in selected EU member States, December 2010 Austria: extraction, preparation, and storage of mass minerals; operation of oil refineries, gas plants, filling stations, and district heating; trading of fuels; investment in transport services, including road freight, taxis, buses; establishment of tour operators and travel agencies by non-resident entities Belgium:establishment of travel agencies by enterprises originating in non-EU member States France: establishment in the banking and financial services sector of non-resident investors originating in non-EU member States; establishment of insurance companies originating in non-EU member States; investment by non-EU residents in: political and general information publications appearing at least once per month (other than those intended for foreign communities in France) and audio-visual communication services; insurance brokerage; exploration, extraction, and exploitation of hydrocarbons, and waterfalls; and acquisition of agricultural land adjacent to the Swiss border Germany: establishment of airline enterprises with headquarters abroad Greece: establishment of travel agencies by enterprises originating in non-EU member states Ireland: foreign acquisition of shipping vessels registered in Ireland Italy: foreign investment in the exploration and exploitation of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons; granting of tour operator and travel agent licences to nationals of non-EU member states, or to enterprises in such states United Kingdom: authorization of mergers and take-overs involving investors from non-EU member states Source: WTO Secretariat, based on OECD Code of Liberalization of Capital Movements, 2010. Viewed at: http://www.oecd.org/daf/investment/codes.

151. In Germany, prior to acquiring a resident company, foreign investors may request a certificate confirming that their acquisition does not compromise public policy or public security. Applications must be accompanied by a general outline of the planned acquisition, and information on the investors and their activities. If the Ministry of Economics and Technology does not launch an examination within one month of receiving an application, the certificate is deemed to be issued. Certificates are legally binding.

152. Under France's Decree 2005-1739, certain investments in "sensitive" sectors from companies whose corporate headquarters are outside the EU or the European Economic Area (EEA) are subject to notification and review.[174] These investments are reviewable if they result in: control of a firm with corporate headquarters in France; acquisition of a branch of a firm with corporate headquarters in France; or acquisition of more than one-third of the capital or voting rights of a firm with corporate headquarters in France.

153. Investments in sensitive sectors from companies whose corporate headquarters are in the EU or EEA are also subject to review under France's Decree, but under less stringent conditions.[175] For some sensitive sectors, investments from these companies are reviewed only if they result in control of a firm with corporate headquarters in France, or in the acquisition of a branch of a firm with corporate headquarters in France. For other sensitive sectors, reviews are carried out exclusively on investments that result in the acquisition of a branch of a firm with corporate headquarters in France. In addition, some sensitive sectors are defined more narrowly for investments from companies headquartered in the EU or EEA than for other investments.

154. The entity responsible for carrying out investment reviews in France is the Ministry of Economy, Finance, and Industry. Reviews must be completed within two months after the submission of information by the investor. The Ministry may prohibit a particular transaction, or set conditions to mitigate the security concerns raised by it. The Ministry's decision to prohibit a transaction may be appealed administratively and judicially. The Secretariat has no data on the number of cases reviewed or on their outcome.

155. In December 2010, work was under way to address the European Commission's formal request to France to modify Decree 2005-1739 of 30 December 2005.[176] The Commission is concerned that some aspects of this decree are in contradiction with EU law and could discourage investment from other member States.

(ii) State trading and state owned enterprises

156. During the period under review, the EU notified that it does not maintain "any state trading enterprises in accordance with the working definition contained in paragraph 1" of the Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XVII.[177] Individual member States did not submit any notifications pursuant to Article XVII of the GATT 1994.

157. State-owned enterprises have exclusive rights in respect of imports of alcoholic beverages (Finland and Sweden), gas (Greece and Luxembourg), and electricity (Luxembourg). In 2007, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled that Sweden's ban on imports of alcoholic beverages was a prohibited quantitative restriction under EU law, and could not be justified as a means to protect human life and health (Box III.2).

Box III.2: Sweden's import monopoly on alcoholic beverages Under a Swedish law examined by the Court of Justice of the EU in 2007, imports and retail sales of alcoholic beverages in Sweden may be carried out exclusively by Systembolaget, a state-owned enterprise. The Court of Justice ruled that the prohibition on imports of alcoholic beverages by private individuals is a prohibited quantitative restriction on imports under EU law. Although Swedish law requires Systembolaget to supply, and if necessary, import alcoholic beverages that it does not offer, the Court indicated that individuals importing alcoholic beverages through Systembolaget are confronted with "a variety of inconveniences with which they would not be faced were they to import the beverages themselves." The Court rejected the justifications for the import ban provided by Sweden, i.e. to limit the consumption of alcohol generally, and to protect young persons from the harmful effects of alcohol. It considered the ban "unsuitable" for attaining the objective of limiting alcohol consumption generally because of the "rather marginal nature of its effects in that regard". Under the law, the consumer can always request Systembolaget to supply alcoholic beverages. Furthermore, because the law bans imports by private individuals irrespective of age, the Court found that it "clearly goes beyond what is necessary for the objective sought, which is to protect younger persons against the harmful effects of alcohol consumption." The Commission notes that, following the Court's decision, the Swedish Government retains full powers on the retail sale of alcoholic beverages through its alcohol retail monopoly Systembolaget, with the exception of distant purchases of alcohol for private consumption from other member States. According to the Commission, "this has been required by the Court of Justice of the European Union while interpreting the Treaty rules on the free movement of goods (Articles 34-36 TFEU)". Source: WTO Secretariat, based on Court of Justice of the EU, Case C-170/04 Klas Rosengren and Others v Riksaklagaren, 5 June 2007; and information provided by the Commission.

158. As indicated in the Secretariat Report for the previous Review of the EU, state ownership varies significantly across member States. The extent of state ownership across business sectors, measured as the proportion of sectors where the state controls at least one firm, is below the OECD average in Belgium, Estonia, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, and above average in the Czech Republic, France, Greece, Italy, Poland, Slovenia, and Sweden.[178]

159. Long-standing de jure monopolies are in effect in several member States, for example in rail transportation, energy, utilities, and gambling. Under the third Postal Directive, member States must abolish all remaining postal service monopolies by 31 December 2010.[179] Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Poland, and Romania, which together represent 5% of the EU letter post market, may postpone the implementation of the third Postal Directive by two years. According to a study prepared for the Commission, although the postal markets in Estonia and Finland have been fully liberalized, licensing requirements inhibit market entry in the correspondence segment in Estonia, and the letters market in Finland (Chapter IV(2)(iv)).[180]

160. In addition, EU member State governments often enjoy special rights in certain state-owned companies. Some of these measures have been challenged on the basis that they infringe EU rules on the free movement of capital (Box III.3 and section (i) above).

Box III.3: Selected member State's special rights in state-owned companies Germany: In October 2007, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled in case C-112/05 that Germany had failed to fulfil its obligations under EU rules on the free movement of capital by maintaining in force three provisions of the 1960s law that privatized the car manufacturer Volkswagen. These provisions grant public authorities (the Land of Lower Saxony and potentially, the Federal Government) automatic representation on the company's supervisory board, limit the voting rights of every shareholder to 20% of the share capital, and fix the blocking minority at 20% for the most important decisions of the general assembly of shareholders. In its ruling, the Court pointed out that the 20% voting cap, in conjunction with the 20% blocking minority, were derogations from German general law on limited liability companies. According to the Court, the Land of Lower Saxony, which had a share of approximately 20%, could oppose important resolutions based on a lower level of investment than would be required under general company law. The Court concluded that this situation was liable to dissuade investors from other member States, and thus was a restriction on the free movement of capital. Regarding the right of the Federal Government and the Land of Lower Saxony to appoint two representatives each to the supervisory board of Volkswagen, provided that they are shareholders but irrespective of the extent of their holding, the Court stated that this gave two public actors the possibility of exercising influence in excess of their investment levels, and was therefore a restriction on the movement of capital. In late 2008, Germany abolished the provisions on the automatic representation of public authorities on the board, and the 20% voting cap. The Law's provision fixing a 20% blocking minority remains in place. Germany's Ministry of Justice considers that, with the recent amendments to the Volkswagen law, Germany has applied the Court of Justice's ruling "speedily and fully".

Box III.3 (cont'd)

 

Greece: Under Law 3631/2008 the acquisition by shareholders other than the State of voting rights in "strategic companies" is limited to 20%, unless prior approval is granted by an inter-ministerial privatization committee. In addition, the Law requires the ex-post validation by the Minister of Economy and Finance of important corporate and certain specific management decisions pertaining to these companies. According to the Commission, which began a procedure to contest certain aspects of Law 3631/2008 in May 2008, the criteria for granting prior approval to acquire voting rights beyond 20% are imprecise, and there are no criteria for ex-post validation of certain company decisions by the Minister of Economy and Finance. The Commission considers that "this situation gives the administrative authorities a wide margin of discretion, which... restricts the rights of potential investors deriving from [EU rules on] the free movement of capital". In addition, the Commission considers that the scope of Greece's law is unclear, thus creating uncertainty. The Commission concludes that the prior approval and ex-post validation schemes go beyond what is necessary to ensure the objectives pursued by the Government. The case was referred to the Court of Justice of the EU in February 2011.

The powers also allow the Minister to veto certain key management decisions, and to appoint a non-voting director. Special powers clauses were introduced into the articles of association of several companies, including ENI (petrochemical and energy), Telecom Italia (telecommunications), Enel (electricity), and Finmeccanica (defence). The Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 10 June 2004 defined criteria for the exercise of special powers, requiring that special powers be exercised "solely when justified by important and compelling reasons in the public interest concerning, more particularly, public policy, public security, public health and defence", and that they take the form of "measures appropriate and proportionate to the protection of those interests". In its ruling of March 2009 in case C-327/2009, the Court of Justice of the EU found that the criteria for the exercise of special powers were formulated in a "general and imprecise manner". Moreover, the Court ruled that the lack of any connection between the criteria and the powers to oppose the acquisition of shareholdings and the conclusion of pacts by shareholders "increases the uncertainty surrounding the circumstances in which those powers may be exercised and gives them a discretionary nature". In November 2009, the Commission called on Italy to apply this ruling. Portugal: Energias de Portugal (EDP) was privatized in six successive phases between 1997 and 2006. Currently, the Portuguese State holds 25.73% of the share capital. The legal framework governing the privatization of EDP and the articles of association set out special rights for the State in the company. These special rights include veto rights on resolutions to amend the company's articles of association, and the right to appoint a director in the company. The articles of association impose a limit on voting rights in the general assembly for all shareholders holding more than 5% of the capital of the company, except for the State entities. The Commission considers that these special powers are unjustified restrictions on the free movement of capital and the right of establishment under the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, in so far as they hinder both direct investment and portfolio investment. In 2008, it referred the case to the European Court of Justice. In its November 2010 ruling, the Court found that Portugal had failed